The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a large, highly diversified company.
"Ten years ago our company had two new office buildings constructed as regional headquarters for two different regions. The buildings were erected by two different construction companies—Alpha and Zeta. Even though the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build, and its expenses for maintenance last year were twice those of the building constructed by Alpha. Furthermore, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been higher than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Such data, plus the fact that Alpha has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, indicate that we should use Alpha rather than Zeta for our contemplated new building project.”
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The author argues that the Alpha construction company is a better choice than Zeta construction company for the new building project being planned. This claim is based on several reasoning such as cheaper construction and maintenance cost, lower energy consumption, corroborated also by workforce stability in the Alpha construction company. Stated in this way, the argument reveals instances of problematic reasonings by using several assumptions which distorts the view of the condition being assessed for the proposal. These flaws set up the argument to fail under scrupulous scrutiny.
First of all, the argument readily assumed that the two identical building plans being constructed in two different region should by all means results in identical building cost also. It is clear, however, that this assumption does not stand in solid ground. To assess this claim we need more information on the similarities and differences to be found in the two different building site. The cost differences both in the construction and maintenance cost could essentially be affected by readiness of the land and surrounding neighbourhood in regard of the new headquarter, which was not provided by the author. Thus, the arguments will be more convincing if the assumption is supported by evidence on how these conditions are identical or at least similar in the two different building site.
Furthermore, the author also readily assumes that higher cost of construction and maintenance in the Zeta building would lead to smaller profit. However, there is no mention on the quality of the two building and the profits generated by them in the argument. While it is true that price of construction and maintenance means loss of money, it should not be assumed that the quality of the two building is the same, therefore, the profit will automatically be decreased. For instance, the Zeta building could actually has better quality and provides better satisfaction for the employees who works in the building and also the consumers visiting the headquarters. If this case is true, it is likely that the Zeta building will bring better profit and satisfaction towards the company than the cheaper Alpha building. If only the author give us the information of the satisfaction and profit level or at least the quality of the building themselves, the argument would be able to endure better under thorough examination.
Finally, the argument also used Alpha construction company workforce stability to concludes that the company is a better choice than Zeta construction company. Nevertheless, the flaw of this reasoning is quite apparent in the fact that stable workforce and employee turnover does not correlate with the quality of the building constructed by the two companies. Without a clear explanation on how these two factors corroborated the quality of the works produced by the company, the reader is left with the impression that the claim is only a mere assumption made without any scrupulous basis of analysis. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the argument is weak and could not be readily accepted by the readers.
In summary, the argument is flawed and thus unconvincing as it stands. The instances of unproven assumptions and problematic logical flow ensures the failings of the argument in being persuasive. Analysis of the quality and satisfaction of the buildings as well as the major differences or similarities of the two construction sites - if there is any - would need to be supplemented in order to significantly ameliorates the author’s argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 117, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'region' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'regions'.
Suggestion: regions
...lans being constructed in two different region should by all means results in identica...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 179, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
...eans results in identical building cost also. It is clear, however, that this assump...
^^^^
Line 5, column 519, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'have'
Suggestion: have
...tance, the Zeta building could actually has better quality and provides better sati...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'finally', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'nevertheless', 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'well', 'while', 'at least', 'for instance', 'in summary', 'such as', 'as well as', 'first of all', 'it is true']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.260517799353 0.25644967241 102% => OK
Verbs: 0.137540453074 0.15541462614 88% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0825242718447 0.0836205057962 99% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0550161812298 0.0520304965353 106% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0161812297735 0.0272364105082 59% => OK
Prepositions: 0.140776699029 0.125424944231 112% => OK
Participles: 0.046925566343 0.0416121511921 113% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.05542725364 2.79052419416 109% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0129449838188 0.026700313972 48% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.00161812297735 0.001811407834 89% => OK
Determiners: 0.140776699029 0.113004496875 125% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0177993527508 0.0255425247493 70% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00809061488673 0.0127820249294 63% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3575.0 2731.13054187 131% => OK
No of words: 571.0 446.07635468 128% => OK
Chars per words: 6.26094570928 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88831323574 4.57801047555 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.373029772329 0.378187486979 99% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.320490367776 0.287650121315 111% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.250437828371 0.208842608468 120% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.168126094571 0.135150697306 124% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05542725364 2.79052419416 109% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 207.018472906 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.408056042032 0.469332199767 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 48.0520402254 52.1807786196 92% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 25.9545454545 23.2022227129 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.4828976473 57.7814097925 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 162.5 141.986410481 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9545454545 23.2022227129 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.909090909091 0.724660767414 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 58.0035822321 51.9672348444 112% => OK
Elegance: 2.14728682171 1.8405768891 117% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.299103786107 0.441005458295 68% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.142496964479 0.135418324435 105% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0705297537623 0.0829849096947 85% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.646994538904 0.58762219726 110% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.138400869168 0.147661913831 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149286785859 0.193483328276 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0591172701804 0.0970749176394 61% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.601606218396 0.42659136922 141% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.088337057922 0.0774707102158 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.238250799301 0.312017818177 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0181026784875 0.0698173142475 26% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.33743842365 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 11.0 6.46551724138 170% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.