The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company with food
storage warehouses in several cities.
"Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control
services at our warehouse in Palm City, but last month we discovered that over $20,000 worth of food
there had been destroyed by pest damage. Meanwhile, the Buzzoff Pest Control Company, which we haveused for many years in Palm City, continued to service our warehouse in Wintervale, and last month only
$10,000 worth of the food stored there had been destroyed by pest damage. This difference in pest
damage is best explained by the negligence of Fly-Away."
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed
explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the
argument.
This memo urges on the fact that enacting a new alliance with new company to protect the food kept in warehouse face with negative repercussions. To endorse this thesis, three postulations have been proposed. 1) A number of food marred and contaminated with pests increments more remarkable than the previous corporation. 2) The surveillance of new company has not been sufficient to shield the food products from pests and 3) the efficiency of the pesticides of new firm cannot be effective as the former company. Close scrutiny each of the facts, divulges that none of them seem coherent in elucidating the hypothesis.
A threshold problem with the argument involves the number of polluted food with pests in comparison with the previous corporation. Going into the depth, the writer underestimated the significance of external factors in polluting the food products besides the pests. That means, other environmental issues may become involved in engendering the loss in food products. Thus, here the lack of validation of the author’s allegations about the weak performance of pesticides of new firm rather than the old one. Furthermore, altering the physical and chemical features of new kinds of food which may evince various reactions to new pesticides cannot be omitted. Another important issue is the number of whole food kept in a warehouse has not been mentioned.
Even assuming that inspection of executers of new company is another determining factor contributing to the vast demolishes of food cannot be tenable. To delineate, the scrivener neglects the impact of the condition of a warehouse in retaining the food production under the proper situation. Accordingly, the inspectors may carry out their responsibilities and task meticulously, but the necessary circumstances to help the pesticides to demonstrate their true performances may not be defensible. Consequently, in addition to the fault of inspectors in curtailing the condition, who could deny the predominance of the physical condition of warehouses in which the food is preserved?
Not does the mere fact that the old company could provide the higher efficiency of pesticides compared with the new corporation. Broadly speaking, the pest-resistance to the pesticides can be deemed another strike element in devastating the pests. Indeed, there is the high probability that new kinds of pesticides are resistant to current pesticides and it is critically essential to create new ones which are more vigorous than the previous ones to halt them. Based on this explanation, if even the old pesticide are implemented, the yield of this company will be lowered to its lowest point as well. Hence, the main culprit of extenuating the influences of pesticides is derived from other origins rather than the pesticides themselves; sources such as the disease-resistance of new pests or the change in inside chemical properties of food itself. Simply stated, the role of effective factor of old pesticides should not be vindicated for this case.
In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore implausible as it stands. To bolster the hypothesis, the author must regard the physical ambiance of warehouses in which the food is maintained and the environment factor should be scrutinized cogently. As well as, the role of resistance of new types of pests to pesticides is another must. Ultimately, the change in chemical and physical properties of food as an invaluable culprit of this loss should be inserted in the thesis.
(557 words)
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 211, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...three postulations have been proposed. 1 A number of food marred and contaminated...
^^
Line 1, column 213, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[5]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun food seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much food', 'a good deal of food'.
Suggestion: Much food; A good deal of food
...ree postulations have been proposed. 1 A number of food marred and contaminated with pests incr...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 514, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: Scrutiny
...not be effective as the former company. Close scrutiny each of the facts, divulges that none o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, besides, but, consequently, furthermore, hence, if, may, so, therefore, thus, well, broadly speaking, in addition, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 87.0 55.5748502994 157% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2961.0 2260.96107784 131% => OK
No of words: 559.0 441.139720559 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2969588551 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86242540663 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16045960283 2.78398813304 114% => OK
Unique words: 265.0 204.123752495 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.474060822898 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 930.6 705.55239521 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.5211538088 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.44 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.36 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.88 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.183258247542 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0558666726901 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0586338355526 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117924068389 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0518873116785 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.99 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 151.0 98.500998004 153% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.