The following appeared in a report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that manufactures parts for heavy machinery: “The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn, are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology, but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument discussed at a meeting of the board of the directors of a company tries to establish a direct link between the decreasing profits and delays in production of heavy machinery. According to their statement, these suspensions in manufacturing mainly occur as a result of poor management in purchasing operations. Moreover, the report also claims that although the manager of the company has a deep knowledge of the business administration, psychology, and sociology, he/she does not have any appropriate background related to the properties of metals and this is fact is supposed to strengthen the argument above. Consequently, the company suggests moving the manager to the sales department and hiring a scientific researcher for the position of the purchasing manager. However, the statement is unconvincing and has three main flaws.
First of all, the board of directors assumes that reduction in returns and delays in manufacturing overlap. This is a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not show any clear correlation between the manufacturing and the deficit in profits. There might be other reasons, which affect the profitability of the company. For instance, the economic condition of the heavy machinery sector, the motivation of other employees, transportation issues etc. should also be analysed in detail before drawing any conclusion with regard to any changes in the management of the company.
Secondly, the report blames the purchasing manager who has a very strong background on business, sociology and psychology for the delays. However, the directors grasp the importance of his/her experience for the company and do not want to fire him completely from the company. Therefore, they want to move him to the sales department. By doing so, the company only increases its expenses. As the manager is really good at business and other related issues, they can send him/her to the trainings for learning the properties of metals for several months. Having one skilled manager would definitely help the company optimize its expenses.
Finally, the company is going to hire a scientist from the research division in order to cease the delays and increase the revenues. However, this would probably lead to much more delays, because a chemist without an experience and knowledge on business and management would not manage the purchases effectively. Therefore, in this case the questions like “How will a researcher manage the company’s purchases without the knowledge in business?”, “Is having the knowledge in only the features of metals enough for the management of the company? remain open to debate. Without convincing answers to these questions, one left with the impression that the claim is more of an amateur thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts with respect to the correlation between the production delays and the deficit in revenues. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, the role of transportation, the motivation of the employees, the overall economic conditions other tens of aspects should be taken into account. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 566, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Remain
...ough for the management of the company? remain open to debate. Without convincing answ...
^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'consequently', 'finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'really', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'for instance', 'in conclusion', 'as a result', 'first of all', 'with regard to', 'with respect to']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.269607843137 0.25644967241 105% => OK
Verbs: 0.12091503268 0.15541462614 78% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0637254901961 0.0836205057962 76% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0539215686275 0.0520304965353 104% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0147058823529 0.0272364105082 54% => OK
Prepositions: 0.12908496732 0.125424944231 103% => OK
Participles: 0.0326797385621 0.0416121511921 79% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.12207652498 2.79052419416 112% => OK
Infinitives: 0.031045751634 0.026700313972 116% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.15522875817 0.113004496875 137% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0147058823529 0.0255425247493 58% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00326797385621 0.0127820249294 26% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3487.0 2731.13054187 128% => OK
No of words: 542.0 446.07635468 122% => OK
Chars per words: 6.43357933579 6.12365571057 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82502781895 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.431734317343 0.378187486979 114% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.359778597786 0.287650121315 125% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.265682656827 0.208842608468 127% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.193726937269 0.135150697306 143% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12207652498 2.79052419416 112% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 207.018472906 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.481549815498 0.469332199767 103% => OK
Word variations: 57.3228240285 52.1807786196 110% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.039408867 130% => OK
Sentence length: 20.8461538462 23.2022227129 90% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.5074457079 57.7814097925 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.115384615 141.986410481 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8461538462 23.2022227129 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.769230769231 0.724660767414 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 56.8240136248 51.9672348444 109% => OK
Elegance: 2.27586206897 1.8405768891 124% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.576055114487 0.441005458295 131% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0926064242664 0.135418324435 68% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0644920436429 0.0829849096947 78% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.570337955407 0.58762219726 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.159374039709 0.147661913831 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.248414544754 0.193483328276 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120610597308 0.0970749176394 124% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.588068212516 0.42659136922 138% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0738615835655 0.0774707102158 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.458786259902 0.312017818177 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0483737771297 0.0698173142475 69% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.33743842365 180% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.