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 author argues that XYZ company should take the subscription of Delany Personnel Firm instead of Walsh Personnel Firm to help laid-off employees getting their jobs. Stated in this way, the argument failed to consider several factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To justify the argument, the author reasons that Delany Personal Firm is better for getting job for employees early and effectively rather than Walsh Personnel. However careful scrutiny of the argument provides little creditable support to author's argument. Thus, author's argument can be considered incomplete or unsubstantiated.
First of all, the author failed to mention the information about the annual packages of employees which have taken subscription from Delany and Walsh Personnel Firm. For instance, if the annual package of employees who have taken subscription of Walsh is much higher than those of Delany, then would be inadequate to consider the Delany Personnel Firm's subscription. Moreover, if Walsh is providing jobs to employees in a reputed company where they can work for a long period instead of Delany where the company can hire people in contractual basis or their chances of getting fired are higher, like in case of startup jobs, then it would be better option to go for Walsh Personnel rather than Delany.
Secondly, since author had claimed that eight years ago they have taken the subscription of Walsh Personnel Firm and many of the employees failed to get the jobs within an year. Possibly, their employee wouldn't posses that much skills at that time to survive in the market or may be the requirement of jobs for the skills they posses were low at that time. Comparatively, since Delany has provided more jobs last year may be due to the enormous number of vacancies in many companies. Or it could be possible that Delany have got the jobs for people in various call centers at very low salaries. Hence, the information about the skill-set of employees and available jobs for them should be given by the author in order to better assess the claim.
In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author should provide clear concrete evidences either by the way of reliable survey about the types of jobs which employees got after subscription of either Delany or Walsh. Finally to better evaluate the information, it would be necessary to know more information about the number of employees with higher annual salaries who have taken advantage from subscription of either of the two firms.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 422 350
No. of Characters: 2096 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.532 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.967 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.609 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 104 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.375 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.752 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.374 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.561 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.119 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 170, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...employees failed to get the jobs within an year. Possibly, their employee wouldnt ...
^^
Line 5, column 204, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...ithin an year. Possibly, their employee wouldnt posses that much skills at that time to...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 224, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...bly, their employee wouldnt posses that much skills at that time to survive in the m...
^^^^
Line 7, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...assess the claim. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 269, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...ubscription of either Delany or Walsh. Finally to better evaluate the information, it ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, thus, for instance, in conclusion, by the way, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2137.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 421.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07600950119 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52971130743 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67434804861 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463182897862 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 650.7 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.5854493969 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.5625 119.503703932 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3125 23.324526521 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.625 5.70786347227 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.173633536761 0.218282227539 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0675830762381 0.0743258471296 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0643930734205 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114108849377 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0314472549373 0.0628817314937 50% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.3550499002 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.