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.
According to the memorandom, the author argues fast-food warehouse in Palm City should return to Buzzoff Pest Control instead of Fly-Away Pest Control which they have used recently in order to save money. It seems convincing at first, however, lack of evidence leads me to question the credibility of the arugument.
First, the author should give more detail evidence on the number of destroyed food when warehouse in Palm City used the Buzzoff. The effort of two Pest Control Company, Fly-away and Buzzoff, should be compared through a visible number of data. It is plausible that the adverse condition in food damage by pest might be more serious when the Palm City warehouse used the Buzzoff than Fly-away. Moreover, the $20,000 might be not a significant number if the scale of warehouse in Palm City is larger than the warehouse in the Wintervale. Thus, the author should give more evidence on the size of two warehouses and the actual number of the damaged food.
Second, It is too hasty to dismiss Fly-Away Pest Control Company as a uneffective Company, since the Palm City has used the company for a shorter time than Buzzoff relatively. It would be better for the Palm City warehouse to keep look into the condition for a long term. Last month there might be more pests because of the adverse weather which was favorable to them. Also, it is plausible that the pest were vulnerable in Wintervale weather but stronger in the weather condition of Palm City.
Finally, more credible evidence should be afforded on the decision to contract all of their warehouses with the Buzzoff only. The author have to consider all the detail income and expenses together to judge whether their decision would be lucritive or not. It is too early for Palm City to expire the contract, since they could not satisfy the contract context. They might have to pay for huge comission fee.
In summary, there are many unsoundness content that the author suggested. the argument seems very unconvincing in many grounds. To bolster the argument, the author should give more detail and specific evidence on the actual damaged food number, detail weather condition of the two cities and the detail gap between expenses and incomes.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: According to the memorandom, the author argues fast-food warehouse in Palm City should return to Buzzoff Pest Control instead of Fly-Away Pest Control which they have used recently in order to save money.
Error: fast-food Suggestion: fast food
Error: memorandom Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: It seems convincing at first, however, lack of evidence leads me to question the credibility of the arugument.
Error: arugument Suggestion: argument
Sentence: Second, It is too hasty to dismiss Fly-Away Pest Control Company as a uneffective Company, since the Palm City has used the company for a shorter time than Buzzoff relatively.
Error: uneffective Suggestion: ineffective
Sentence: The author have to consider all the detail income and expenses together to judge whether their decision would be lucritive or not.
Error: lucritive Suggestion: lucrative
Sentence: They might have to pay for huge comission fee.
Error: comission Suggestion: commission
----------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- need to argue this:
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.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 374 350
No. of Characters: 1800 1500
No. of Different Words: 165 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.398 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.813 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.395 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 136 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 101 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.971 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.529 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.361 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.59 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.075 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 69, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ismiss Fly-Away Pest Control Company as a uneffective Company, since the Palm Cit...
^
Line 9, column 23, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun unsoundness seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much unsoundness', 'a good deal of unsoundness'.
Suggestion: much unsoundness; a good deal of unsoundness
...omission fee. In summary, there are many unsoundness content that the author suggested. the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 75, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...ness content that the author suggested. the argument seems very unconvincing in man...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, look, moreover, second, so, thus, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 33.0505617978 48% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 58.6224719101 84% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1849.0 2235.4752809 83% => OK
No of words: 374.0 442.535393258 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.94385026738 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3976220399 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46761894164 2.79657885939 88% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 215.323595506 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.446524064171 0.4932671777 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 578.7 704.065955056 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.796857217 60.3974514979 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.722222222 118.986275619 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7777777778 23.4991977007 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.66666666667 5.21951772744 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.189138926137 0.243740707755 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0641620967017 0.0831039109588 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.066460828884 0.0758088955206 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114394862723 0.150359130593 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0668124937133 0.0667264976115 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.1392134831 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.8420337079 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.88 8.38706741573 94% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 100.480337079 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => 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.