In the memo of XYZ company, the suggested switch to Walsh Personnel Firm was criticized by its author. He argues that despite the lower service costs, the Walsh Firm is inferior to the firm XYZ is currently working with. The author points out several facts in the support of his argument: (1) eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only 50 percent of the workers found a job within one year; (2) Walsh has smaller staff amount and fewer branch offices; (3) on average, Delany’s clients land a job 3 months faster. At first, such reasoning seems cogent, but once considered with scrutiny it becomes highly untenable since some crucial information is lacking.
First of all, the author must provide us with the statistical data of the economic state of the country and the specific city that XYZ operates in. Undoubtedly, such a factor usually directly influences the situation in the job market. It is entirely possible that this factor was accountable for the unsuccessful results of Delany eight years ago. If it turns out that it was an aberration due to the excess of supply at the labor market or a general economic recession, then the argument would be significantly weakened since the results of Delany’s work were affected by the outside force, an external factor, they had no control of.
Secondly, the time required for finding a job also correlates with a profile of a potential employee as well as with the type of the desired job. For that matter, perhaps those two firms are specializing in different fields or help to the people of different ‘career ladder stages’. Consider, finding a job for a full stack developer and a person specializing in the particular stage of a certain product. The first one is in very high demand nowadays whereas the latter may have a hard time looking for a job since his skills are too specific. Therefore, the productivity and effectiveness of Delany and Walsh employees cannot be considered unless there is information provided regarding the types of jobs they help to lend and the profiles of both firms’ clients.
Finally, we cannot evaluate the productivity of employees of both firms as well as their successfulness and competence solely based on the number of employees and branch offices. In fact, one worker at Walsh Personnel Firm could help to find a job for one person a day, while at Delany it would take a week for one employee. The better results of Delany could be reached only due to the bigger amount of employees, not to the higher level of efficiency. Therefore, it is important to know the exact statistics, exact numbers of the work results of each worker of both firms.
In the final analysis, the argument is unconvincing as it stands as it lacks crucial information. Unless the above-mentioned pieces of evidence that support the argument are provided, it cannot be considered cogent.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 489 350
No. of Characters: 2312 1500
No. of Different Words: 249 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.702 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.728 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.66 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 171 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.737 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.507 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.474 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.293 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.539 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.089 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 73, Rule ID: BOTH_AS_WELL_AS[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'and' after 'both'.
Suggestion: and
...productivity of employees of both firms as well as their successfulness and competence sol...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, look, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, whereas, while, in fact, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2402.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 489.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 4.91206543967 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82982992494 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 204.123752495 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535787321063 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 748.8 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.4621638734 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.421052632 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7368421053 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.73684210526 5.70786347227 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => 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: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.167768112335 0.218282227539 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0499810877966 0.0743258471296 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0441113884486 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0826314640917 0.128457276422 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0476153268639 0.0628817314937 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.