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 fast food w

Essay topics:

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 fast-food 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 have used for many years, 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. Even though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerably lower, our best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services."

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

The vice president of the food distribution company claims that they should stop working with Fly-Away Pest Control Company and return to the Buzzoff Pest Control Company because the amount of food destroyed due to pesticides were much lower when Buzzoff was taking care of it. The author of the memo suggests several reasons that seems like they are upholding the author's claim, but it is rife with holes and assumptions which will be discussed with further details below.
First of all, the vice president presents an evidence showing that after signing a contract with Fly-Away, the amount of food that were destroyed by pesticides were over $20,000 worth, on the contrast, when Buzzoff was dealing with it, only $10,000 worth of food had been destroyed. This might seem like a viable proof, however, the author needs to be clear of how much worth of food were being stored and the percentage of food that were destroyed by the pesticides on each of the two cases. Even if $20,000 seems like much more than $10,000, only 10% of the food could had been destroyed by pesticides when working with Fly-Away, while 20% of the food had been destroyed by pesticides when working with Buzzoff. Only with the numerical amount of worth that were damaged by pesticides given is not enough to identify the relativeness between the two companies.
In addition, as a follow-up of the paragraph above, even though $20,000 worth of food had been destroyed by pest damage, it is obscure whether pest damage was the dominant cause of food being destroyed. There could have been other causes that destroyed the food and got infected by pesticides. Food can be damaged in multiple ways simultaneously. Maybe the whether was much warmer than when Buzzoff had been dealing with the safety of the foods, and because of the relatively warm temperature, the food rotted easily and were damaged first by the temperature. For the vice president to uphold his/her claim with such evidence, he/she would have to be more clear with whether pest damage was the dominant reason in destroying the stored food for each two companies.
Lastly, the location of where each two companies were responsible with the safety of the food differs. Fly-Away provided the pest control services on Palm City, while Buzzoff provided their service on Wintervale. For the quality of their service to be compared with justice and equality, the location would have to be the same. Mainly because just as mentioned above, the food that are stored in Palm City may be two times more than those that are stored in Wintervale. In this case, then even though the worth of food that were damaged in Palm City is two times bigger than Wintervale, still same percentage of food were destroyed.
To sum up, even though the claim and the following evidence that the vice president presents might seem plausible, through thorough investigation and reading the memo in various perspectives, it is confirmed that it is not plausible. For the vice president to fully uphold his/her claim, he/she would have to provide substantial information about and not make a mistake of bringing two data that clearly has a great possibility of unable to be compared.

Votes
Average: 7.5 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 563, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'have'
Suggestion: have
... than 0,000, only 10% of the food could had been destroyed by pesticides when worki...
^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, may, so, still, then, while, in addition, first of all, to sum up

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 40.0 19.6327345309 204% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 84.0 55.5748502994 151% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2646.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 540.0 441.139720559 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82057051367 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50217737828 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.403703703704 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 798.3 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 62.4715243773 57.8364921388 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.0 119.503703932 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.0 23.324526521 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.44444444444 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.353546136109 0.218282227539 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.128241325521 0.0743258471296 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0856675943824 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.218074853463 0.128457276422 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0941693683377 0.0628817314937 150% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.49 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.05 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 12.3882235529 141% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 544 350
No. of Characters: 2594 1500
No. of Different Words: 215 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.829 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.768 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.42 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 169 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.222 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.967 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.38 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.38 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.121 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5