The vice president of the company strongly recommends Appian Roadways over Good Intentions Roadway because of their respective performances in Route 40 and Route 101. His arguments favoring Appian Roadways are based on week and ambiguous claims and are not backed by compelling evidence. First of all, there is no discussion regarding the nature of both routes. The author assumes that both routes are of same nature with same traffic density. However, it could have been possible that route 101 must have been a busy road with a lot of traffic going by each day. On contrary, route 40 must have been a slow road with a fewer vehicles going over it everyday, then that would have explained the rugged condition of route 101 although it was paved two years after route 40.
Moreover, there is no mention of the weather conditions surrounding the two parts of the state where the routes are located. There could have been a possibility that a storm might have hit the part of the state where route 101 is located thereby damaging the road with geological weathering. There could also be a possibility that route 101 is located in a steep geographical topology where the land sliding must have damaged the roads excessively.
There is also no information regarding the previous contracts of both the company. There could be a strong possibility that the Good Intentions Roadways had a much better track record than Appian Roadways with this being there only failed projects. On the other hand Appian Roadways could have a bad track record with route 40 being their only successful venture. The Appian roadways have hired a new Quality Control Manger but nothing being stated in the passage about the portfolio of the Quality Manager, The Manager could have been an inexperienced individual who could not uphold to the Quality standards of Shopping Mall Construction Company.
In Conclusion, the logical soundness of the evidence is not compelling and a well informed survey regarding the profiles of both the companies is required before handing over the project to Appian Roadways.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 347 350
No. of Characters: 1709 1500
No. of Different Words: 172 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.316 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.925 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.543 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 116 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 91 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.786 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.025 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.643 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.376 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.574 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.138 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 650, Rule ID: EVERYDAY_EVERY_DAY[3]
Message: 'Everyday' is an adjective. Did you mean 'every day'?
Suggestion: every day
...oad with a fewer vehicles going over it everyday, then that would have explained the rug...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... have damaged the roads excessively. There is also no information regarding the pr...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 84, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...previous contracts of both the company. There could be a strong possibility that the ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, moreover, regarding, so, then, well, in conclusion, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1742.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 347.0 441.139720559 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02017291066 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6006693629 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.49855907781 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 534.6 705.55239521 76% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.1650719409 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.428571429 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.7857142857 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.85714285714 5.70786347227 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.130463959533 0.218282227539 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0488931137036 0.0743258471296 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0482919592641 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.076377061598 0.128457276422 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0397879675077 0.0628817314937 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.