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 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."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The author proposes returning to Buzzoff for pest control services. He or she offers an interesting argument, but it suffers from some logical flaws and gaps in evidence. While the connections suggested are reasonable, there are many other possible scenarios that should discourage the company from returning to Buzzoff for their pest control services.
To begin with, consider the last month's data that the author provides. The author assumes that selecting Buzzoff will save more money than Fly-Away because they damaged less money last month. Yet there is no reason to believe that Buzzoff is better option. Evaluating the performance only by comparing absolute numerical value is not logical. If total value of the fast-food warehouse in Palm City was $1,000,000 while total value of the warehouse in Wintervale was $50,000, for example, we would not say that Buzzoff's performance was better. What's more, considering only last month's data to assess the corporation's achievement could be misleading by several reasons. For example, Fly-Away might have damaged less comparing to the other with the exception of the last month. Or, since the contract with Fly-Away was done only recently, the company may have needed more time to adapt to the warehouse. Therefore, without information of the storehouse's total value and performance data longer than one month, we can not determine which company would save more money.
Let us assume, though, that Fly-Away's performance was worse and it's worse performance will continue. Then we are prompted to ask what causes it's worse performance. Was it, in fact, it's inability? Or were there any other factors that cause more damage? There may be many factors other than company's ability which can affect it's work. For example, Palm city's pests might be stronger than Wintervale's pests because of difference between the environemnt of Palm city and that of Wintervale. Or the storehouse in Palm city might have poor condition to control the pest. Therefore, without answering what causes more destruction in Palm city, we can not project economical benefit.
Similarly, the claim that the company can save more money by preferring Buzzoff depends on the assumption that Buzzoff can keep their quality of work even though the areas where Buzzoff have to manage are being larger. Buzzoff's performance could deteriorate as it's range are spanning. The company may lack workers to manage large area, or it may lack experiences of working in broad area. To satisfy the claim, the author should show that Buzzoff can keep their performance regardless of it's area.
Finally, even if we assume that the above assumptions will all hold up, we cannot take for granted the financial benefit. The author does not present the price charged by each company. Even if Buzzoff provides better performance, if the price charged by the company is much higher than it's benefit it is illogical to choose Buzzoff. For instance, if Fly-Away company costs $10,000 less per month than the other it is logical to choose Fly-Away even if $5000 worth of food has saved more every month when the company uses Buzzoff's pest control services.
A close examination of all the assumptions made in the author's proposal reveals that the company does not have enough justification to prefer Buzzoff. Although the proposal certainly points out a possible course of action, the company should not act until they have more information.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 30 15
No. of Words: 558 350
No. of Characters: 2827 1500
No. of Different Words: 252 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.86 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.066 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.524 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 200 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 158 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.6 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.851 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.567 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.281 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.497 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.139 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 34, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'months'' or 'month's'?
Suggestion: months'; month's
...es. To begin with, consider the last months data that the author provides. The auth...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 402, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...the fast-food warehouse in Palm City was ,000,000 while total value of the warehou...
^^
Line 3, column 540, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
...y that Buzzoffs performance was better. Whats more, considering only last months data...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 574, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'months'' or 'month's'?
Suggestion: months'; month's
...tter. Whats more, considering only last months data to assess the corporations achieve...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 600, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'corporations'' or 'corporation's'?
Suggestion: corporations'; corporation's
...ing only last months data to assess the corporations achievement could be misleading by seve...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 734, Rule ID: WITH_THE_EXCEPTION_OF[1]
Message: Use simply 'except' or 'except for'
Suggestion: except; except for
...ave damaged less comparing to the other with the exception of the last month. Or, since the contract ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 931, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...house. Therefore, without information of the storehouses total value and performa...
^^
Line 11, column 56, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...tion of all the assumptions made in the authors proposal reveals that the company does ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, if, may, similarly, so, then, therefore, while, for example, for instance, in fact, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.9520958084 185% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2883.0 2260.96107784 128% => OK
No of words: 558.0 441.139720559 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16666666667 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86024933743 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58526629757 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 266.0 204.123752495 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476702508961 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 897.3 705.55239521 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.5548338471 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.1 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.7 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.204993248572 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0525184460726 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0534154477779 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107059208122 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0514424923006 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 98.500998004 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => 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.