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 Pal 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 vice president of the company is stating in the memo that to maximize their benefits, hiring Buzzoff Pest Control Company for all their pest control services would be a better option than current situation with Fly-Away Pest Control Company. To support this argument, the author claims that while the damage in Pal City controlled by Fly-Away was worth over $20,000 in last month, the loss in Wintervale managed by Buzzoff was only $10,000. Although this argument may seem plausible at first, the assumptions lead readers to doubt the validity of the argument.
To begin with, the author overlooks other causes that can evoke pest damage rather than capability of the pest control company in charge. Since the cases compared happened in different warehouses in different cities, there could be multiple factors that caused the difference between the amount of loss. First, the weather in two cities could be different: temperature, humidity, wind, etc. Especially, humidity is a factor that affects a lot in pest control. Second, the amount of food stored in each warehouse could have been different. For example, if the warehouse in Wintervale only stored the food worth $10,000 while the warehouse in Pal City stored the food worth $30,000, it means that Fly-Away forestalled 33% of the damage while Buzzoff lost the whole food.
In addition, the type of food in the warehouse in Pal City might have rotted easier because it was fast-foods that the company stored in there. The ingredients in fast-foods may deteriorate faster because they are intended to ingest within a short amount of time. Therefore, without knowing the type of food that have been stored in the warehouse in Wintervale, we cannot claim that the damage in Pal City was significantly higher due to the incompetence of the pest control company.
Finally, the cost-benefit ratio of the two companies has to be provided to determine which company could be their best means of saving money. In the argument, only losses are stated while the benefit made from the lower cost of contract with Fly-Away Pest Control is not revealed. In this circumstance, if the payment to Fly-Away Pest Control is more than $10,000 lower than the payment to Buzzoff Pest Control, the contract with Fly-Away Pest Control economizes the company’s expenditure.
In conclusion, to bolster the author’s argument to alternate the pest control company, several details need corroborated further. The argument has to contain the current situation of each warehouse regarding the environments and food storage. Furthermore, the amount of money that the company paid to each pest control companies would have justified the argument better.
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 2, 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.
...nomizes the company’s expenditure. In conclusion, to bolster the author’s arg...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, furthermore, if, look, may, regarding, second, therefore, while, as to, for example, in addition, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 11.1786427146 9% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2254.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 435.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1816091954 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64439370626 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.464367816092 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 684.0 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => 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: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.2916494062 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.222222222 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1666666667 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.88888888889 5.70786347227 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.463763633256 0.218282227539 212% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.144954773559 0.0743258471296 195% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0924840924021 0.0701772020484 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.267365292217 0.128457276422 208% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0355212511481 0.0628817314937 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.06 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 2, 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.
...nomizes the company’s expenditure. In conclusion, to bolster the author’s arg...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, furthermore, if, look, may, regarding, second, therefore, while, as to, for example, in addition, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 11.1786427146 9% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2254.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 435.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1816091954 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64439370626 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.464367816092 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 684.0 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => 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: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.2916494062 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.222222222 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1666666667 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.88888888889 5.70786347227 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.463763633256 0.218282227539 212% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.144954773559 0.0743258471296 195% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0924840924021 0.0701772020484 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.267365292217 0.128457276422 208% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0355212511481 0.0628817314937 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.06 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => 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.