The following appeared in a presentation by the chief production manager of a machine parts manufacturing company at a management meeting:
“Our factory in Cookville is our most advanced and efficient. It is capable of producing ten drill bits for each dollar of production costs, whereas none of our other factories can produce more than seven drill bits per dollar of production costs. Therefore, we can reduce our overall drill bit production costs by devoting the Cookville factory entirely to drill bit production. Since reducing the production costs of individual machine parts is the only way to achieve our larger goal of reducing our overall production costs, dedicating the Cookville factory entirely to drill bit production and shifting all other machine part production to our other factories will help us to attain that larger goal.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . .etc.
The author concludes that their company can achieve goal of overall production cost reduction by shifting drill bit production to factory in Cookville from all other plants and by shifting other production to other factories. To support his argument author provides the evidence of drill bit production capability as factory in Cookville can produce more bits per doller than any other company. Although the argument has few merits, because of lack of evidence, weak argument and vague language makes the argument unsubstantiated and deeply flawed.
Firstly, the author concluded that production cost can be reduced by operating factory in Cookville full for drill bits as this factory has most advanced and efficient machinery than any other factory. The author fails to predict any other aspect of cost reduction such as manpower issue, raw material supply. He has not mentioned that the factory in Cookville capacity is well enough to meet the market demand. Otherwise, this paln to shift the drill production facility to factory in Cookville will fail.
Secondly, the author has not mentioned any information that cost of shifting of production will not make much impact on their current and future expenses target. Otherwise, this plan is unlikely to succeed. Moreover, author has not mentioned any evidence how shifting of production will reduce individual machine cost. He has just mentioned one data i.e factory in Cookville can produce more bits per doller. However, this single piece of data is not sufficient to make such huge decision. Production cost depends of various factors like availability of raw materials, capability of factories to handle demand volume.
Lastly, author has fail to see the advantage of production facility in different location. If any break down happen in particular factory, that loss can be managed by other factory, which is under capacity. If author can provide data that no such incident happen in the past and every factory has a back up plan for breakdown, then the argument could have been strengthened.
To conclude, although the author has mentioned an interesting argument, due to various flaws as mentioned in above make the argument less persuasive and deeply flawed. However, had the author mentioned the additional data as mentioned above, the argument could have been made stronger. Otherwise, this argument has no legs to stand.
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 19 15
No. of Words: 382 350
No. of Characters: 1962 1500
No. of Different Words: 175 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.421 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.136 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.605 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 155 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 121 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.105 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.433 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.526 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.371 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.575 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.123 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, lastly, moreover, second, secondly, then, well, in particular, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 19.6327345309 41% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2013.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 381.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28346456693 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68553577973 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.477690288714 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 639.0 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.4610206006 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.947368421 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0526315789 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.21052631579 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.157567942633 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0544960707822 0.0743258471296 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0589201110565 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0945179101392 0.128457276422 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.059381793129 0.0628817314937 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.