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-fo

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 author of this memo advances a specious argument regarding the expenses that the food distribution company could potentially save up via returning to Buzzoff, rather than continuing with the use of Fly-Away, for pest control services. Although the author’s argument appears ostensibly compelling, more pieces of specific evidence are in exigent demand in order for a comprehensive and thorough consideration of whether or not switching back to Buzzoff for its pest control services would be efficacious or not.

To begin with, the author audaciously assumes that every part and parcel of the two warehouses is identical, save the pest control companies servicing them. What is not pellucid, however, is pertinent to such specifics of the two warehouses as their size and the types of food ingredients stashed inside. It might be the case that the warehouse in Palm city is three times larger than that in Wintervale. Given its enormous storage capacity, the warehouse in Palm city would reasonably witness more pest damage. In fact, if the percentage of pest damage, in lieu of the gross number of pest damage, in the Palm City warehouse is statistically lower than that in the Wintervale warehouse, the argument asserted by the author would be weakened; that is, the control service of Flyway Pest Control Company would certainly be more effective than that of Buzzoff Pest Control Company. The author’s argument can be further cemented or weakened, were the information regarding the specific information of food stored in the two warehouses provided. One plausible scenario might be that the food ingredients stored in the warehouse at Palm City are more susceptible to mold and decay, thus attracting a swarm of pernicious pests, which in turn further the damage, whereas the counterparts in the ware at Wintervale City are more resistant to the deterioration, thereby making the reportage of pest damage significantly less frequent. The author’s failure to furnish such evidence for corroboration renders his main argument highly suspicious. Even with these pieces of information proffered, the author would still have to delineate the weather conditions in these two cities since differing climate patterns might have clout on the proliferation and the invasion of pests. On the basis of the names of those two cities, one can rationally infer that Palm City is located in a warm, humid locale, where rodents or worms can easily propagate and colonize the warehouse therefore, and that Wintervale has a lower temperature and a cooler, drier air, the condition of which can easily stave off the reproduction of pests. Accordingly, the author could have made his own argument much more tenable had he presented such comparative information as the weather of the two cities, the types of the food stored, and the percentage of the pest damage in each warehouse.

Another respect that should have been taken into account lies in the figures in the memo. The author makes this assumption that last month over $20,000 worth of food at the Palm City had been damaged by pests, and merely $10,000 at Wintervale. However, one month of the amount of damage cannot soundly validate the efficacy of the service by the Buzzoff. To be more specific, it might be the case that last month’s excessive amount of pest damage in the warehouse at Palm City is an anomaly. The same might also apply to the warehouse in Wintervale: $10,000 from last month’s pest damage was a lull or respite before the amount of jeopardy by pests would pick up again in Wintervale in the next few months to above $20,000, for instance. Therefore, the author would have made a cogent case if he could have deliberated and mulled over the data from the previous months; otherwise, the food distribution company should not return to the Buzzoff company for all its pest control services, as stated in the original argument.

Last, the causality between the Flyway pest service and the increased damage at the warehouse in Palm City seems rather flimsy in that there are a host of variables that can exert negative influence on the food storage and further pest damage. To exemplify, the employees at the warehouse in Palm City might fail to pay meticulous attention to stocking food properly, thus compromising the effectiveness of the services that Fly-away provides. Unless the author illustrates other factors that contribute to the increased pest damage at the warehouse in Palm City, designating the blame solely on the Fly-away is anything but rational.

The author’s claim to return to Buzzoff’s service is arguably misguided and weakly substantiated. To make more believable and argumentatively established the augment of using Buzzoff instead of Fly-away for controlling the pests in the warehouses, the author should have provided necessary evidence as well as information on the size of the warehouses and the type of food ingredients that they store, along with details about the weather conditions in those cities. The author’s argument would be more compelling if he could incorporate retrospective information about the previous figures of pest damage to make an projection about whether the increased or decreased pest damage would likely continue. Last, the author could make a stronger case by addressing if there are any other factors that feed into the pest damage.

Votes
Average: 6.6 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 421, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...rehensive and thorough consideration of whether or not switching back to Buzzoff for its pest ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 15, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e efficacious or not. To begin with, the author audaciously assumes that ever...
^^
Line 7, column 148, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'hosts'?
Suggestion: hosts
...seems rather flimsy in that there are a host of variables that can exert negative in...
^^^^
Line 9, column 165, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ievable and argumentatively established the augment of using Buzzoff instead of Fly-away fo...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 630, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...previous figures of pest damage to make an projection about whether the increased ...
^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ctors that feed into the pest damage.
^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, however, if, regarding, so, still, therefore, thus, well, whereas, for instance, in fact, as well as, to begin with

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 29.0 12.9520958084 224% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 23.0 11.1786427146 206% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 127.0 55.5748502994 229% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4530.0 2260.96107784 200% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 873.0 441.139720559 198% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.18900343643 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.43567598422 4.56307096286 119% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88594103327 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 359.0 204.123752495 176% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.411225658648 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1446.3 705.55239521 205% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 21.0 8.76447105788 240% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 33.0 22.8473053892 144% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 89.1364222703 57.8364921388 154% => OK
Chars per sentence: 174.230769231 119.503703932 146% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.5769230769 23.324526521 144% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.34615384615 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 19.0 6.88822355289 276% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.286122295161 0.218282227539 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0932116464409 0.0743258471296 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0710898337353 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192172870216 0.128457276422 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0270187813553 0.0628817314937 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.8 14.3799401198 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.52 48.3550499002 61% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.3 12.197005988 142% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.07 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 210.0 98.500998004 213% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 12.3882235529 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.2 11.1389221557 136% => OK
text_standard: 20.0 11.9071856287 168% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.

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.