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's expenses 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 author argues here to use Zeta construction company for the new building project rather than Alpha company. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention many several keys on the basis it could be evaluated. On the support of this recommendation, the author stated that Zeta constructed old building for his company which has lower energy consumption and lower maintenance costs than the other building constructed by Alpha. However, careful scrutiny of evidence reveals little credible support for the author's recommendation. Hence, the argument can be considered unsubstantiated and incomplete.
First of all, the argument readily compares between the two building based on the consumption of energy and maintenance cost. This is merely and unlogic comparison and made without much solid ground. The operation condition of the two building may be different. For example, is the number of employees the same in those two old building? Hence, the argument would have been more convincing if it stated the numbers of people using the two building are the same.
Secondly, the author cites that the two buildings have the same floor plans. However, the one built by Zta was 30 % much in cost that the other one built by Alpha. This is an indicator that Alpha is an economic and efficient construction company. There is a question, what is the reason behind this difference in cost? If it was due to using better material or something like that, it would be a reasonable reason. If they are the same, then it is unlogic and uneconomic to use Zeta to build the new one.
Finally, any company wants to build a new project, it hires a construction company that gives the lowest price with commitment of all conditions and structural safety of the new building. Alpha company is already offered the lowest price to construct the new building in the bid. So, why the author is recommending to go for other company? are there any other reasons that can convince the reader.
In conclusion, the author recommendation is not valid. He is comparing between two building on the basis of energy consumption and maintenance. To better evaluate the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about the motive of preferring Zeta company.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The author argues here to use Zeta const...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 518, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...reveals little credible support for the authors recommendation. Hence, the argument can...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...idered unsubstantiated and incomplete. First of all, the argument readily compa...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e using the two building are the same. Secondly, the author cites that the two ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 340, Rule ID: IT_IS_JJ_TO_VBG[1]
Message: Did you mean 'use'?
Suggestion: use
...is difference in cost? If it was due to using better material or something like that,...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 340, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Are
...s recommending to go for other company? are there any other reasons that can convin...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1874.0 2260.96107784 83% => OK
No of words: 374.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01069518717 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3976220399 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82308452268 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.491978609626 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 592.2 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 2.0 0.471057884232 425% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.6563552294 57.8364921388 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.4782608696 119.503703932 68% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2608695652 23.324526521 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.73913043478 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.230593443778 0.218282227539 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0727361741038 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0635946056764 0.0701772020484 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.137415114544 0.128457276422 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0377278467403 0.0628817314937 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.3 14.3799401198 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.