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 i

Essay topics:

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 faulty for numerous reasons. Essentially, the evidence offered to argue the main claims of this argument are not as cogent as they appear. Concluding the difference in pest damage is seen because of the negligence of Fly-Away Pest Control Company, is unreasonable. Other alternatives can be explored.

Firstly, the author fails to provide evidence to support that the $20,000 worth of food damage in Palm City was because of the pest control workers at all. It could be possible that Fly-Away had enforced new rules and regulations on the warehouse in Palm City that detailed workers should keep all food away from a certain area for the time the company was providing their services which would ensure food safety. Instead, it could have been the employees of the warehouse that did not follow instructions and stored food in an area that was restricted, in turn resulting in damaged foods. If this were the case, then the reason of food damage was not because of the negligence of the pest control company but the food distribution company itself. On the other hand, if the author presented information that demonstrated no special procedures were in place or if they were then all employees in fact did follow the policies, then the argument would deem to be more plausible. In either case, it is difficult to keep watch on all employees to ensure the food safety regulations were being followed by everyone.

Additionally, the argument neglects to address other issues. Imagine there is a credible method to make sure all employees were following instructions and extra guidelines were in place for food safety, this is not a sufficient amount of evidence to conclude the perceived damage was the pest control company’s fault. So, the arguer continues to speculate other factors are not playing a role in the results. For example, it is mentioned in the memo that only $10,000 worth of food damage occurred in the warehouse in Winterdale. But the argument does not include if the two different locations hold the same amount of food to make a comparison of the cities. There is a possibility that the warehouse in Palm City is bigger than the one in Winterdale and has the capacity to hold more items. This could mean because Winterdale has a smaller warehouse which holds less food items, the food damage to $10,000 worth of food is a bigger loss than the one seen in 20,000, which would render the comparison made of the two warehouses as illogical. However, if the two locations held the same amount of foods then the argument would hold more validity. But even so, other factors are being ignored.

Finally, the arguer does not account for natural causes that could have caused the loss seen in Palm City. For example, if the day that the Palm City warehouse was scheduled to be serviced by the pest control company, was extremely windy, it could have caused the pesticides to have traveled in air to other areas of the warehouse. The pesticide that was displaced could have landed on foods that were placed in faraway areas to keep them safe and this could have damaged the foods. In this case, it was not because the staff of the pest control company were being careless, it’s because the weather had affected their work, which would not be their fault and the argument would be undermined further.

As a result of the various unwarranted presumptions made by the argument, the author is unsuccessful in showing an association between the loss of food and the Fly-Away pest control company.

Votes
Average: 6.1 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 192, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... and the Fly-Away pest control company.
^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, so, then, as to, even so, for example, in fact, as a result, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 41.0 19.6327345309 209% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2937.0 2260.96107784 130% => OK
No of words: 605.0 441.139720559 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.85454545455 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.95951083803 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58073860245 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.395041322314 0.468620217663 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 924.3 705.55239521 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.7714899397 57.8364921388 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.375 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2083333333 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.04166666667 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 6.88822355289 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.27866793662 0.218282227539 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0851441886155 0.0743258471296 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0801033011827 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.170807873948 0.128457276422 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0598385973897 0.0628817314937 95% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.15 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 98.500998004 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.

Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.

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: 24 15
No. of Words: 605 350
No. of Characters: 2869 1500
No. of Different Words: 242 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.96 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.742 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.501 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 195 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 148 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 95 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.208 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.504 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.458 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.311 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.494 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5