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 have used 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
The argument stated above is a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities, accusing the recently contracted Fly-away Pest company for its negligience to control pests in Palm city comparing the dollar worth of food damaged by pests in Palm City and Wintervale, stating that Buzzof Pest control company which provided pest control services in Palm city before contract with the Fly-Away Pest control Company, Buzzoof Pest control company has 10000 dollar pest damaged food but the Fly-Away Pest control Company has 20000 dollar worth pest damaged food . The argument is flawed in numerous ways.
First of all, the Vice president does not take into account the warehouse sizes and food storing quantity of both of the warehouses. If the Palm City warehouse has comparatively very large warehouse with high storage of food materials, obviously the damage is also going to be high. If the warehouse at Wintervale is very limited with small food storages, then, the damage is going to be relatively less. So, in either case, the Vice president does not provide any information regarding the warehouse size and storage quantity and hence it cannot be trusted.
Secondly, the location of the warehouses is not mentioned. If the Palm city warehouse is located near a dense forest area, the amount of pests will be high, so is the damage rate. Similarly, if the Wintervale warehouse is located in city area, obviously, the rate of pests and hence the damage rate will be lesser. If both cases were true, the argument doesn’t hold water.
Moreover, there is no information regarding the quality of the food procured. For example, the materials procured in the prescribed month may have defects with more pests in them. If that is true, the argument falls apart.
In conclusion, the Vice President has to provide more evidence for the flaws mentioned above. Only in that case, it is possible for the argument to be true.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 331 350
No. of Characters: 1602 1500
No. of Different Words: 149 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.265 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.84 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.477 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 109 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.688 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 16.015 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.812 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.6 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.121 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 91, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several ...
^^
Line 1, column 616, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...has 20000 dollar worth pest damaged food . The argument is flawed in numerous ways...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, similarly, so, then, as to, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 7.0 28.8173652695 24% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1654.0 2260.96107784 73% => OK
No of words: 330.0 441.139720559 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01212121212 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57024246866 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.457575757576 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 528.3 705.55239521 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 135.042446002 57.8364921388 233% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 110.266666667 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.4 5.70786347227 165% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.45156631135 0.218282227539 207% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0963401502329 0.0743258471296 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.133182666931 0.0701772020484 190% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.196635947471 0.128457276422 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.18586878141 0.0628817314937 296% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 98.500998004 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 54.0 12.3882235529 436% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.