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 a food distribution company suggests that control services should return to Buzzoff because the damage by Buzzoff is less than that by Fly-Away Control Company. However, some musing over evidence is first very much in order before taking any steps.
Firstly, the author claims that the food destroyed by pest damage in Palm city is twice as much as Wintervale. Still, the credentials of these warehouses in Palm city and Wintervale have to be presented before we trust the argument. It is possible that the amount of food conserved in Palm city is ten times that in Wintervale and the loss percentage due to pest damage is only half of it in Wintervale. In other words, the information about how amount of food conserved in Palm City and Wintervale has to be offered to make the argument more cogent.
Additionally, even if both sites conserve exactly the same amount of food, the detailed environment information is not clear, such as temperature and humidity. Because they could affect pest growing condition dominantly. For instance, the temperature and humidity in Palm City is much higher than Wintervale City, so the number of pests in Palm City is actually ten times of Wintervale and the food in Palm City is likely to be ate by pests.
Besides, the performance report from Fly-Away is not enough representative as Buzzoff. According to the argument, Buzzoff has been cooperated for many years, but Fly-Away is the new one and the data reported is from last month. Judging by scare data could be dangerous, so more credentials of Fly-Away performance data is wanted. It is possible that Fly-Away is the world-top pest control company and has been adopted by most famous food companies, their performance may suffer a little bit at the beginning for the transition route because anything is not settled during that time. In the long term long, Fly-away could be the most reliable pest control company according to 3rd party authoritative investigation reports. It is suggested that the vice president should consult with other companies or investigation companies for more performance results of Fly-Away Company.
Moreover, The author proposes that returning service to Buzzoff because it’s the best way to save money even the price offered by Fly-Away is lower than Buzzoff. Nevertheless, the detailed financial information is opaque and has to be provided. It could be true that Buzzoff costs 1 percent more than Fly-Away, but the overall loss is only half of Fly-Away and the overall benefit is almost 2 times than Fly-Away for the same warehouses and the same weather condition. On the contrary, if Buzzoff actually costs 3 times than Fly-Away, but it only saves 10% food loss by pest damage. Therefore, Fly-Away is the one to save money as a whole, not Buzzoff. The writer has to offer detailed financial information including income, loss with total amount and percentage under Fly-Away and Buzzoff.
In conclusion, unless the evidence mentioned above to be presented, readers could not believe in the argument.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 505 350
No. of Characters: 2490 1500
No. of Different Words: 215 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.74 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.931 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.678 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 178 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 143 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 99 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.955 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.364 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.727 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.338 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.587 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 160, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...lear, such as temperature and humidity. Because they could affect pest growing conditio...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 480, Rule ID: LITTLE_BIT[1]
Message: Reduce redundancy by using 'little' or 'bit'.
Suggestion: little; bit
...mpanies, their performance may suffer a little bit at the beginning for the transition rou...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...percentage under Fly-Away and Buzzoff. In conclusion, unless the evidence menti...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, still, therefore, as to, for instance, in conclusion, such as, in other words, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2552.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 505.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05346534653 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74048574033 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76919205983 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.435643564356 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 804.6 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.7106711526 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.0 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9545454545 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.18181818182 5.70786347227 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.306490638309 0.218282227539 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0953412876982 0.0743258471296 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0724635741496 0.0701772020484 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151797296019 0.128457276422 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0825982590028 0.0628817314937 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.85 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.