The following appeared in a memo at XYZ company.
"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating résumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."
The author claims here that to provide assitence to laid off employees, we must hire delany's service rather than walsh personnel firm. The argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To justify this conclusion author reasons that delany's firm has higher number of staff and it's expensive than Walsh personnel firm. However, careful scrutiny of evidence reveals that it provide little credible support for author's conclusion. Hence, this argument can be considered unsubstantiated or incomplete.
Firstly, argument readily assumes that last year who opted for delany's firm other than walsh's firm, they got quickly job. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. For example, what if who took delany's firm, he/she is more suitable for perticular job. And it also do not provide info about how many perosons got the job quickly. Hence argument would have been much more convincing if it would have provided information about the people who got the jobs and how many numbers of people opted for the firm.
Moreover, author states here that delany's firm is more expensive than walsh's firm so, choosing it is a mistake. This again is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any clear correct correlation between being expensive firm and being good firm. To illustrate further, it can possible to be expensive because less number of people opted for the firm, and it is also possible that the firm which is less expensive than other has higher number of success rate than other. If the argument had provided evidence in support of expensive firm and explained that it is also successful firm then it would have been much more convincing to reader.
Finally, the author cites that the number of people working in delany's firm is greater than the other so it would be a better option. However, careful examination of evidence reveals that it provides little support for author's conculsion and raises skeptical question. For example, How quantity is better than the quality?, and how it is possible that the firm has higher number of employees is better option?. Without convincing answer to this questions, the reader is left with the impression that the author's claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. to bolster it further, the author must provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by way of a reliable survey or detailed analysis of comperison between Delany and Walsh's firm. Finally, to better assess the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about what is the conversion rate of both the firm for to provide job for the employees?
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 284, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'does'?
Suggestion: does
...uitable for perticular job. And it also do not provide info about how many peroson...
^^
Line 3, column 349, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... how many perosons got the job quickly. Hence argument would have been much more conv...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 407, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had provided'?
Suggestion: had provided
...ld have been much more convincing if it would have provided information about the people who got th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 441, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...r option?. Without convincing answer to this questions, the reader is left with the ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...tantive evidence. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 67, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: To
... argument is unpersuasive as it stands. to bolster it further, the author must pro...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'so', 'then', 'for example', 'in conclusion']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.23185483871 0.25644967241 90% => OK
Verbs: 0.153225806452 0.15541462614 99% => OK
Adjectives: 0.127016129032 0.0836205057962 152% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0665322580645 0.0520304965353 128% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0383064516129 0.0272364105082 141% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.125 0.125424944231 100% => OK
Participles: 0.0282258064516 0.0416121511921 68% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.56245887253 2.79052419416 92% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0241935483871 0.026700313972 91% => OK
Particles: 0.00201612903226 0.001811407834 111% => OK
Determiners: 0.0745967741935 0.113004496875 66% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0201612903226 0.0255425247493 79% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0221774193548 0.0127820249294 174% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2729.0 2731.13054187 100% => OK
No of words: 452.0 446.07635468 101% => OK
Chars per words: 6.03761061947 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61088837703 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.384955752212 0.378187486979 102% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.296460176991 0.287650121315 103% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.190265486726 0.208842608468 91% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.106194690265 0.135150697306 79% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56245887253 2.79052419416 92% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 207.018472906 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.438053097345 0.469332199767 93% => OK
Word variations: 48.2751381763 52.1807786196 93% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 21.5238095238 23.2022227129 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.4068406752 57.7814097925 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.952380952 141.986410481 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5238095238 23.2022227129 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.571428571429 0.724660767414 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 3.58251231527 167% => OK
Readability: 51.1698272229 51.9672348444 98% => OK
Elegance: 1.4921875 1.8405768891 81% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.191346227935 0.441005458295 43% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.102384406167 0.135418324435 76% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0775907536153 0.0829849096947 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.538476696822 0.58762219726 92% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.15991291146 0.147661913831 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0781749616718 0.193483328276 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0492228921277 0.0970749176394 51% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.397492109717 0.42659136922 93% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.111810688632 0.0774707102158 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136704652517 0.312017818177 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.024236237562 0.0698173142475 35% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => 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: 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.