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 Bugs Company, which we have used for many years in Palm City, continued to service our warehouse in Winterville, 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 Bugs for all our pest control services."
In this memo, the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities claims that to reduce loss by pest in storage warehouse in palm city, the company have to contract with Bugs company rather than Fly-Away company. To support her argument, she reports that the loss of warehouses in the Palm city by pest last year was over $20,000, in contrast, loss at warehouse which is serviced by the Bugs company in Winterville by pest was only $10,000. This seems plausible first, however, careful scrutiny reveals that this argument has several logical flaws.
To begin with, based on the fact that the larger loss occurred in the warehouse which is serviced by Fly-Away company than the warehouse which is serviced by another company, she hastily assumes that "absolute" comparison of price of loss in each company is reasonable. However, it could not be. For example, if the overall amount of storage in the warehouse at Palm city is much larger than twice as worthy as worth of food in the warehouse at Winterville, the worth of food loss per specific amount of food of the warehouse at Winterville is bigger than the warehouse at Palm city. If this is true, we cannot be convinced by this argument.
Secondly, even if we admit that the direct comparison of the damage is not unreasonable, the author the difference in amount of loss at each warehouse is because of difference in ability of two companies to prevent pest However, the report of last year could be uncommon case. For example, in last year, if specific species of pest occurred uncommonly in the area of Palm city, and do not occur this year, there is no guarantee that the damage to the food storage in the warehouse at Palm city is bigger than warehouse of Winterville city. Until she rule out this problem, this argument is groundless.
Finally, even if we admit other problems are true, there is another critical problem. the author presumes that the conditions of warehouse in Palm city is similar, even same, with the conditions of warehouse in Winterville city. However, there could be differences in each warehouse. For example, warehouse in Palm city could have harder structure to prevent pest or could store kinds of food which are more vulnerable to pest. If she cannot explain the Bugs company will also better than Fly-Away company in preventing pest at Palm city, this argument is not cogent.
To summarize, this argument is still dubious as it stands. To make this argument more persuasive, the vice president of food storage company have to explain why she thinks the report of price of loss at each warehouses results from the ability of two companies and has to specific data about relative worth of food loss by pest per overall amount of storage. To evaluate better, we have to know that the two warehouses are similar in several factors which can decide the possibility of occurrence of pest.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 501 350
No. of Characters: 2358 1500
No. of Different Words: 174 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.731 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.707 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.484 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 164 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 133 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.471 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 16.884 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.364 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.548 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.183 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 220, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ability of two companies to prevent pest However, the report of last year could b...
^^
Line 5, column 552, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'she' must be used with a third-person verb: 'rules'.
Suggestion: rules
...arehouse of Winterville city. Until she rule out this problem, this argument is grou...
^^^^
Line 7, column 87, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...rue, there is another critical problem. the author presumes that the conditions of ...
^^^
Line 9, column 360, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... by pest per overall amount of storage. To evaluate better, we have to know that t...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, as to, for example, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 91.0 55.5748502994 164% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2437.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 501.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.86427145709 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73107062784 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64406951896 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.367265469062 0.468620217663 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 785.7 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 93.3977456307 57.8364921388 161% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.388888889 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.8333333333 23.324526521 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.38888888889 5.70786347227 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => 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: 0.325059777966 0.218282227539 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108963142998 0.0743258471296 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.113928116123 0.0701772020484 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.226953965216 0.128457276422 177% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0751902057585 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.62 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.9071856287 151% => 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.