The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities.(78/114/116/117)
"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."
In the memo, it is argued that Buzzoff should be selected over Fly-away as the pest control service provider to reduce pest damage. In order to assess the conclusion, we need more evidence about the past performance of the two companies, the two warehouses and detailed costs of pest control and projected loss.
It is over simplistic to conclude that Buzzoff is more effective in pest control than Fly-away based on the fact that the loss at Buzzoff site is smaller than the warehouse served by Fly-away. One important factor to consider is the total value of the goods stored in the two warehouses. With this information, we can then calculate the percentage of loss relative to the total value and assess the effectiveness of the two pest control services. Another issue we need to consider is the different kinds of pests and food found in the two warehouses. Maybe Fly-away has lost more goods simply because the pests they need to handle are more challenging or the food is more vulnerable. More detailed comparative analysis is needed before drawing a conclusion.
In addition, it is inadequate to compare just one month’s record of servicing one warehouse. To get a more comprehensive picture of the competence of the two companies, we need to review the pest control records of the two companies in the past 10-20 years. We should get as much data as possible about how the two companies performed in pest control in order to predict the loss of food caused by pest if a given company is hired.
Finally, we also need more precise information about the pricing of the two companies and other costs such as human resources required to cooperate with the companies. With more detailed information about the prices and other costs, along with the predicted loss, we can then decide which company could provide the least costly services.
To sum up, as it stands, the conclusion is relied in several unanswered questions. To further support the argument, the memo ought to provide more information as follows: first, what are the major causes of difference in pest damage; second, whether one month record is convincing; last, whether Buzzoff is the best way to save money.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 371 350
No. of Characters: 1771 1500
No. of Different Words: 173 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.389 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.774 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.566 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 122 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.733 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.418 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.467 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.383 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.607 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.202 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 281, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
... the past 10-20 years. We should get as much data as possible about how the two comp...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, if, may, second, so, then, in addition, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1825.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 371.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.91913746631 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38877662729 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6868435052 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.482479784367 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 575.1 705.55239521 82% => 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: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
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: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.0144185921 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.666666667 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.7333333333 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.33333333333 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.287188775598 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104319719211 0.0743258471296 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0737772384216 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16746625742 0.128457276422 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0580392205056 0.0628817314937 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.