The following appeared in a memo at XYZ company.
"When XYZ lays offemployees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating resumes and
developing interviewing skills, if they so desire.Laid-offemployees 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 findjobs,wherea Walsh's clients took nine.”
The speaker use certain evidence to reject the propose that use Walsh to take the place of Delany, which is their currently choice, even Walsh requires fewer money. The author's argument is seemingly plausible, but if we take a closer look, some flaws within his argument and evidence given are revealed, in the end challenging his argument harshly.
First of all, a comparison of the situation of job finding between those used Delany and those not is cited by the speaker, his assumption underlying his argument is that those used Delany in any scale will performance better than those do not use it in the process of finding a job. But there is no information about those two kinds of people. Such as the numbers, which plays a very important role when making a comparison. If the people used Delany are only ten, while those do not use are ten times more, it is irresponsible to say that Delany plays the decisive role, because when the basic number rises up, the range and standard deviation will ievitably increase as well, which means that, although the average time of finding a job of those do not use Delany is longer, it might be influenced by a small part of people's bad performance. Same reason could be used on people who use, the reason for ten people to find jobs within six months is probably their better performance. Therefore, without enough information, it is untenable to draw aconclusion.
Secondly, the writer also uses a case happened in eight years--Walsh was used but only half of the workers found jobs in a year period--to champion his choice of Delany. Here, however, a case in eight years before is no longer to be an enough convincing evidence, because during that period, huge development and untold traning programs were conducted in order to increase their company's professional ability. But the speaker reject Walsh without scrutinizing current operation situation of Walsh. And, if the company keeps having a bad professional ability, how can it survive to today? So it is necessary to conduct more research regarding backgrouds.
Thirdly, the assumption of a logic that more superior a company is, the better business ability it contains, lies in the speakers argument that Delany have bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. Although in people's eyes, larger companies provide standardized service, there is also a possibility that larger companies have so many clients that they are hardly extract attention on only one client. Furthermore, bigger staff and larger number of branches do not promise superior, what if facilities and scale of every branches are either inferior or small? Even the scale is larger than Walsh, the officials' professional ethics and quality is still mysterious.
To sum up, although the speacker cites three main argument to challenge the replacement of Delany with Walsh, its quality of evidence is problematic. The author noy only fails to conduct more study to get statistical numbers in his memo, but also fails to complete a logic in his argument. To strengthen his conclusion, it is necessary to take more situations into account.
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: 522 350
No. of Characters: 2532 1500
No. of Different Words: 252 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.78 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.851 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.601 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 186 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.1 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.643 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.85 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.286 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.52 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.072 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 13, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'uses'.
Suggestion: uses
The speaker use certain evidence to reject the propose ...
^^^
Line 1, column 44, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
... speaker use certain evidence to reject the propose that use Walsh to take the place of Del...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 153, Rule ID: FEWER_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'less money'?
Suggestion: less money
...r currently choice, even Walsh requires fewer money. The authors argument is seemingly plau...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 170, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...e, even Walsh requires fewer money. The authors argument is seemingly plausible, but if...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 122, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'speakers'' or 'speaker's'?
Suggestion: speakers'; speaker's
...siness ability it contains, lies in the speakers argument that Delany have bigger staff ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 372, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'extracted'.
Suggestion: extracted
...ve so many clients that they are hardly extract attention on only one client. Furthermo...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, look, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, third, thirdly, well, while, such as, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2605.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 520.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00961538462 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77530192783 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70496953903 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 272.0 204.123752495 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523076923077 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 834.3 705.55239521 118% => 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
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 85.1301797249 57.8364921388 147% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.25 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.4 5.70786347227 147% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.084435256597 0.218282227539 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0253205978179 0.0743258471296 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0280149447021 0.0701772020484 40% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.041446909343 0.128457276422 32% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0272496090727 0.0628817314937 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 98.500998004 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 12.3882235529 137% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.