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 regions. The buildings were erected by different construction companies—Alpha and Zeta. Although the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build. However, that building'sepenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha's. In addition, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Given these data, plus the fact that Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, we recommend using Zeta rather than Alpha for our new building project, even though Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The vice president of a large, highly diversified company recommends that Zeta Construction Company is better than Alpha Construction Company. He showed evidences showing maintenance in Zeta’s building was fifty percent less than Alpha, the energy consumption of Zeta’s was lower than Alpha’s, and finally, Zeta has stable workforce with small quantity of employees shift. The argument seems logical at first glance, but there are some evidences that are not influential as valid persuasion.
First and foremost, author recommends the construction company in present. However, just argument shown, ‘ten years ago,’ or ‘last year,’ is not a fair to evaluate the representative of presenting Alpha, Zeta company. For example, Alpha Company tried to fix their problem on the cost of maintenance fee or develops style of construction. Hence, it is significantly important that there is evaluation of two company’s recent work.
Secondly, Zeta company had energy consumption lower than Alpha. In order to explain this idea, there should be more additional evidences about how much lower energy consumption that Zeta used less than Alpha. Take for instance, Zeta had one thousand energy consumption and Alpha had nine hundred, ninety and nine energy consumption used. There is only one energy consumption difference. But that does not mean that it is valuable to having zeta for constructing building.
Moreover, the evidence is taking about Zeta has better workforce with small quantity of employee’s shift. Author assumes that there is same possible accident caused during construction even though there is little employee turnover. It is commons sense that if workers do not have rest enough, they could not concentrate themselves put out more on the workplace. Little employee turnover makes more accidents. If not, then there should additional evidences that shows Zeta has more interim of rest during work than Alpha, so there is little employee shift.
Lastly, writer talks about the cost; Zeta cost thirty percent more than Alpha even though two company constructs same floor construction. However, in construction, there is always different situation. Author assumes that two companies are in the same situation of construction. Just like difference between Alaska and New York City, there is conditional level of construction such as the rigidity of the ground, the flexibility of the building, and so on. Further, even though two different companies have same floor building, they possibly different in size of building. So writer needs to reconsider about the issues that correlates with cost difference between two companies.
In conclusion, writer, vice president of highly diversified company explains why Zeta is better than Alpha with unproven evidences and assumptions. If author adduces additional evidences and having firm assumption, then the argument will be more valid as persuasive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 125, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...just argument shown, 'ten years ago,' or 'last year,' is not a fai...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 151, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...;ten years ago,' or 'last year,' is not a fair to evaluate the represen...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 433, Rule ID: IT_IS_JJ_TO_VBG[1]
Message: Did you mean 'have'?
Suggestion: have
...at does not mean that it is valuable to having zeta for constructing building. Mor...
^^^^^^
Line 8, column 542, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: different
...have same floor building, they possibly different in size of building. So writer needs to reconsi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, however, if, lastly, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2514.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 447.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.62416107383 5.12650576532 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59808378696 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95034622348 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.480984340045 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 769.5 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.1544945516 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.56 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.88 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.44 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.198097916996 0.218282227539 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0618668224859 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0604594482148 0.0701772020484 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108225959356 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.062946039433 0.0628817314937 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.02 12.5979740519 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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: 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.