While it might be true that returning to Buzzoff for all pest control services will allow the food distribution company save money, this author's argument does not make a cogent case for such a decision. The argument rests on questionable analogy, suffers from a lack of quantification, and makes unwarranted claims of causality.
Primarily, the argument makes an assumption that the warehouses in question are identical in everything but the pest control companies servicing them. However, the argument provides no information regarding the comparative size of these two warehouses and the food type stored in the second storehouse. It could be the case that the first warehouse is twice as big as the second one. Then the actual level of pest contamination is the same but, due to the larger capacity of the Palm City warehouse, more goods are stored there and more of them had been destroyed by the pest damage. If the percentage of damage is lower at Palm City, then we should conclude that Fly-Away provides the better pest-control service. Moreover, the Wintervale warehouse could be used for another type of food which is less vulnerable to the pest damage. The argument could have been stronger, had it provided information regarding the size of both storages, percentage of damage, and the type of food in the Wintervale warehouse. Even then, the author would have to further prove that weather conditions in these two cities are the same. As the names of the cities suggest, the first one could be situated in the tropical part of the country, and the second one could be in the region with cold climate and low temperatures prevailing throughout the year. In this case the Palm City warehouse is more exposed to the pest damage because different insects and rodents are abundant there; and the warehouse in Wintervale is less vulnerable due to the lower number of pests. To strengthen the argument the author should provide comparative information about these two cities, notably the weather conditions, the average humidity and the average temperature during the described period of time.
In addition to making questionable analogies, the author of the argument provides no retrospective information concerning the money means of the pest damage in the past. The speaker makes an assumption that the value of the damage in the Palm City warehouse has increased after the replacement of pest control services provider. However, it could be the case that the overall damage value didn’t change at all. The argument states that over $20,000 worth of food were destroyed by pest damage in the Palm City storage, but it doesn’t provide the average value of damage in the previous months. The argument could have been stronger had it provided information on the value of pest damage the company had earlier, namely when this warehouse had been serviced by the Buzzoff Company. If the value of damage is lower now, then we should conclude that the Fly-Away Company provides better pest-control service. Therefore, the food distribution company should not return to the Buzzoff company for all its pest control services, as stated in the original argument.
Finally, the author fails to prove that the replacement of the pest control service provider is the only reason of the increased damage. There might have been some other reasons that led to the company’s losses. For instance, some force majeure circumstances, such as the locust invasion, or rodent outbreak could have taken place in Palm City. Similarly, the food distribution company could have shipped contaminated food to this warehouse which resulted in the increased damage. Unless the author provides reliable evidence for the assumed causality, one can not deny other factors’ contribution to the damage.
The speaker’s claim that the food distribution company should return to the Buzzoff company for all its pest control services to save money is sadly misguided. The argument could be improved by providing comparative information about these two warehouses, as well as about weather conditions in these two cities. The argument would also benefit from including some statistical information on the value of pest damage the company had before the replacement of pest control service provider. Finally, the author should support the assumed causality with some reliable evidence.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1755, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...verage temperature during the described period of time. In addition to making questionable ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 319, 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.
...weather conditions in these two cities. The argument would also benefit from includ...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'regarding', 'second', 'similarly', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'well', 'while', 'for instance', 'in addition', 'such as', 'as well as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.283715012723 0.25644967241 111% => OK
Verbs: 0.124681933842 0.15541462614 80% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0916030534351 0.0836205057962 110% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0394402035623 0.0520304965353 76% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0152671755725 0.0272364105082 56% => OK
Prepositions: 0.119592875318 0.125424944231 95% => OK
Participles: 0.0356234096692 0.0416121511921 86% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.79685740565 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0190839694656 0.026700313972 71% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.150127226463 0.113004496875 133% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.027989821883 0.0255425247493 110% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00508905852417 0.0127820249294 40% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 4382.0 2731.13054187 160% => OK
No of words: 705.0 446.07635468 158% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.21560283688 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.15284737739 4.57801047555 113% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.380141843972 0.378187486979 101% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.303546099291 0.287650121315 106% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.219858156028 0.208842608468 105% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.141843971631 0.135150697306 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79685740565 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Unique words: 273.0 207.018472906 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.387234042553 0.469332199767 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 48.5397174971 52.1807786196 93% => OK
How many sentences: 29.0 20.039408867 145% => OK
Sentence length: 24.3103448276 23.2022227129 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.0920462933 57.7814097925 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.103448276 141.986410481 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3103448276 23.2022227129 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.655172413793 0.724660767414 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 54.6649547567 51.9672348444 105% => OK
Elegance: 2.44680851064 1.8405768891 133% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.475096665767 0.441005458295 108% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.138510494607 0.135418324435 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.064413898049 0.0829849096947 78% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.629465902565 0.58762219726 107% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.105142687741 0.147661913831 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.226001510491 0.193483328276 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0807604928966 0.0970749176394 83% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.592239592869 0.42659136922 139% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.182626750558 0.0774707102158 236% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.365216463405 0.312017818177 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.077936299067 0.0698173142475 112% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 21.0 6.87684729064 305% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 19.0 5.36822660099 354% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 25.0 14.657635468 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Less content wanted. Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.