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."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The argument that XYZ should employ Delany Firm and not Walsh Firm creates several problems because it assumes that Delanie Firm is more effective than Walsh Firm and, the laid off employees will benefit more from Delany firm than from Walsh firm. Furthermore, it fails to address discrepancies between the two firms and it omits the following important evidences: Walsh firm might have changed it mode of operation from the way it operates eight years ago, bigger staff and number of branch offices does not indicated the effectiveness of a company.
The first leap in the argument is the assumption that Delanie firm is more effective than Walsh firm because the amount of workers who secured job through walsh firm eight years ago is less than the amount of workers who got jobs through Delanie firm last year. this argument seem flawed because it assumed Walsh firm is still the same as it is eight years ago. Walsh firm might have improve tremendously in recent years, it might even be more productive than Delanie firm in recent years. The argument fails to show the effectiveness of Walsh firm in recent years. Thus, for this argument to remain valid, the author need to contrast the effectiveness of both Delanie and Walsh firm in recent years.
Furthermore, the argument assumes Delanie is superior because of its larger number of staffs and many branches of offices. The argument failed to show the amount of staffs in Walsh firm. The argument also failed to provide the amount of branch offices both companies have. Delanie might have just 1 more branch office than Walsh. And also, Delanie’s larger number of staffs might not be as effective as Walsh less number of staffs. Thus, the author need to show the effectiveness of both company regardless of staff population and number of branch offices.
Finally, the argument assumes that those who get job quickly last year was as a result of them using Delanie Firm. This sounds weak as there might be other factors that led to these employees getting job faster than their counterparts. The demand for employees for some particular post is much more than the demand for employees in other staff. As result, the employees who get jobs quickly are those whose jobs are in great demand. For this argument to be strengthened, the author need to provide the evidence that the employees who get job earlier than their counterparts are actually as a result of Delanie firm’s effect and not some other factors.
In conclusion, the argument that company XYZ should hire Delany firm and not Walsh firm makes numerous unstated assumptions that seriously enervate it validity. Unless these assumptions are considered, the argument totally fall apart. Thus, company xyz might be making a major mistake by hiring Delanie firm
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 467 350
No. of Characters: 2266 1500
No. of Different Words: 175 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.649 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.852 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.388 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 160 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 109 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.35 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.058 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.391 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.608 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.187 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 510, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'indicate'
Suggestion: indicate
...f and number of branch offices does not indicated the effectiveness of a company. The ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 263, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...ot jobs through Delanie firm last year. this argument seem flawed because it assumed...
^^^^
Line 3, column 385, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'improved'.
Suggestion: improved
... eight years ago. Walsh firm might have improve tremendously in recent years, it might ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, furthermore, so, still, then, thus, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2322.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 467.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9721627409 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64867537961 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45612425292 2.78398813304 88% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.394004282655 0.468620217663 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 692.1 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.4512001309 57.8364921388 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.571428571 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2380952381 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.47619047619 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.177245378349 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0649116777263 0.0743258471296 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0495774972498 0.0701772020484 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116808963523 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0495670046035 0.0628817314937 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.23 8.32208582834 87% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.