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 examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
Although the XYZ company makes a great case for Delany Personnel Firm of helping laid employees find jobs upon leaving XYZ company, the author assumes Delany Personnel Firm is the only firm that provides the service for helping find employment.
The author assumes that creating resumes and developing interview skills are the only criteria for find a job. However, the prospective employee may be other skills and qualifications that the author overlooks when find a job upon leaving XYZ company. For example, the employee may already have developed the resumes and interviewing skills before the assistance of Delany Personnel Firm. Although the author makes the case that Delany found jobs much more quickly than Walsh Personnel Firm, the services that the two companies provide may be different tailored to the job that the employee is seeking. The implication of the assumption of the services that Delany Personnel Firm provides does not encompass the employee's skills and qualifications that match the job's role and responsibilities.
Furthermore, the author compares the results of Walsh Personnel Firm with Delany Personnel Firm eight years ago. Comparing the result of eight years with Walsh Personnel Firm is risking the opportunity for what Walsh has to offer today. Walsh may provide better services and quicker results than Delany. Assuming that only half of the workers laid off found jobs within a year exaggerates the assertion that only Walsh is incapable to speeding the process for employment, when in fact the employees themselves may have rejected the offers made by the Walsh; hence, the longer processing time required to find another job for laid off employee.
Moreover, the price for the Walsh is lower than that of Delany, as a result, the services that the XYZ company would expect would not be on par with Delany's. While the author assumes that Delany is a better option, XYZ company may receive better return on investment with Walsh's services, although employees may take a longer time to find a job. The satisfaction of the services that Walsh provides may be more advantageous than Delany. Simply ruling out Walsh is an opportunity cost that XYZ company should consider when selecting which firm to use when helping its laid off workers continue their employment elsewhere.
In conclusion, XYZ company should consider both the assumptions and the implications of generalizing the notion that Delany is the solution to helping its employees find jobs. Considering Walsh's services and improvements may help XYZ company make a better decision on which firm will provide the better return on investment for both the company and the laid off employees.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 764, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'jobs'' or 'job's'?
Suggestion: jobs'; job's
...kills and qualifications that match the jobs role and responsibilities. Furtherm...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['furthermore', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'while', 'as to', 'for example', 'in conclusion', 'in fact', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.328293736501 0.25644967241 128% => OK
Verbs: 0.168466522678 0.15541462614 108% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0431965442765 0.0836205057962 52% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0323974082073 0.0520304965353 62% => OK
Pronouns: 0.00863930885529 0.0272364105082 32% => OK
Prepositions: 0.116630669546 0.125424944231 93% => OK
Participles: 0.0561555075594 0.0416121511921 135% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.68741803658 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0151187904968 0.026700313972 57% => OK
Particles: 0.0107991360691 0.001811407834 596% => OK
Determiners: 0.131749460043 0.113004496875 117% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0302375809935 0.0255425247493 118% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0237580993521 0.0127820249294 186% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2696.0 2731.13054187 99% => OK
No of words: 433.0 446.07635468 97% => OK
Chars per words: 6.22632794457 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56165014514 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.392609699769 0.378187486979 104% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.295612009238 0.287650121315 103% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.207852193995 0.208842608468 100% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.129330254042 0.135150697306 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68741803658 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 207.018472906 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.406466512702 0.469332199767 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 43.9026256399 52.1807786196 84% => OK
How many sentences: 16.0 20.039408867 80% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0625 23.2022227129 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.2631005613 57.7814097925 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 168.5 141.986410481 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0625 23.2022227129 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.875 0.724660767414 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 56.6237009238 51.9672348444 109% => OK
Elegance: 2.39175257732 1.8405768891 130% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.280979667961 0.441005458295 64% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.205978649857 0.135418324435 152% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0955900517882 0.0829849096947 115% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.671598733856 0.58762219726 114% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.166798140242 0.147661913831 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.142015996421 0.193483328276 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0561201567462 0.0970749176394 58% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.558388669723 0.42659136922 131% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0414135186184 0.0774707102158 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.220948138581 0.312017818177 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0340310557203 0.0698173142475 49% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.87684729064 29% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 5.36822660099 37% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => 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: This is not the final score. 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.