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.
In the memo from the vice president of a food distribution company, he argues that the Fly-Away Pest Control company has been negligent in their work by stating the reasons that the damage from pest in the warehouse in Plam City where Fly-Away was used was around 10,000 dollars higher than the damage done by pest in the another warehouse in Wintervale which was serviced by another company Buzzoff. The reasons stated by the manager seems plausible at first glance, but under close inspection it is full of assumptions in different situations. Alternative explanations can be given for those situations as follows.
To begin, it is possible that the food stored in the different warehouses were not comparable. It may be the case that, the food in the warehouse in the Plam City were expensive at the first place, and the food in the Wintervale house were less expensive as compared to Plam city. Moreover, it may also be the case that in Wintervale the food stored were less than that of the Plam city. It is also possible that, the food stored in the Wintervale Warehouse was less vulnerable to the attack form the pest as compared to the food in the warehouse of Plam City. So, if any of the above cases have merit, then the argument presented by the vice president in the memo is significantly weakened.
Secondly, it may be the case that the location of the warehouse are completely different. It is possible that Plam City is located in the climate zone where pest are usually more while Wintervale has less pest. It also possible that the conditions of the warehouse are different. The warehouse in Wintervale may be relatively new while Warehouse in Plam City is considerably old, which may attract more pest. In addition, it may be the case that warhouse in Wintervale was regularly maintained while warehouse in Plam City was not. Therefore, if the above cases are true then then the argument presented by the vice president in the original memo is significantly hampered.
Thirdly, even if we assume that the food stored in the both warehouse similar and both warehouse are in similar location with similar condition, it is possible that Fly-Away was hired to for relatively low amount to do a cursory job while the Buzzoff were hired for more amount to do more detailed job of pest control. It is possible that, the Fly-Away used different kind of chemical which were not effective as that of Buzzoff. So, if any of the above cases hold water then the argument in the original memo is markedly hindered.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands is considerably flawed because of its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author of the memo is able to provide more evidence in the systematic manner and provide counter evidence to above three alternative explanations then it will be possible to properly evaluate the argument that the Fly-Away were more negligent.
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 497 350
No. of Characters: 2356 1500
No. of Different Words: 178 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.722 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.74 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.654 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 152 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.158 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.784 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.842 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.385 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.579 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.135 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 572, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: then
... Therefore, if the above cases are true then then the argument presented by the vice pres...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 431, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[4]
Message: “So , if” 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.
... were not effective as that of Buzzoff. So, if any of the above cases hold water then ...
^^^^^^
Line 17, column 376, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... that the Fly-Away were more negligent.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, while, in addition, in conclusion, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 40.0 19.6327345309 204% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2420.0 2260.96107784 107% => OK
No of words: 497.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.86921529175 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72159896747 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71480397109 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.360160965795 0.468620217663 77% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 805.5 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => 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: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 83.2693124347 57.8364921388 144% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.368421053 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1578947368 23.324526521 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.05263157895 5.70786347227 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.259732785784 0.218282227539 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0744646101467 0.0743258471296 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0715496280849 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149203923686 0.128457276422 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0712503260361 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.69 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => 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.