The following is an excerpt from a memo written by the head of a governmental department:
“Neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure ethical behavior by companies doing business with this department. We already have a code of ethics that companies doing business with this department are urged to abide by, and virtually all of these companies have agreed to follow it. We also know that the code is relevant to the current business environment because it was approved within the last year, and in direct response to specific violations committed by companies with which we were then working—not in abstract anticipation of potential violations, as so many such codes are.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The following argument is critically flawed as it contains several fallacies. Primarily, the argument is based on the unwarranted assumption that by only having code of ethics and ignoring stronger regulations and stronger enforcement mechanisms, the department would succeed in enforcing ethical behaviors for companies that deals with the department.
Firstly, the department assumes that the companies that say that they would agree to abide by the code of ethics would actually follow through with their promise. It is crucial that the department should look into the past to study whether the companies that they deal with has kept their promises on earlier codes enacted. Even if the past proves to validate the claim that the companies does follow through with their promises, it does not automatically guaranty that they could continue to do so. It will also benefit the department to analyze the benefits and drawbacks on implementing stronger regulations and stronger enforcement mechanisms such that it will help the department make an educated judgement.
Secondly, it is argued that the code was drafted recently as a response to a specific violation committed by companies with which they are working. The statement blatantly assumes that a code written for a specific violation will cover the entire subject of ethical behaviors. Moreover, it will benefit the department to study the rate at which the code should be revised, as the business environment adapts to changing circumstances.
Finally, it is argued that drafting regulations in anticipation of potential violations are counterproductive. However, there is no evidence to support the claim. Conversely, if the department had provided statistical evidence to support the above mentioned claim, the statement could be warranted. It could be argued that foreseeing potential violations would aid in combating violations in relation to ethical behaviors.
In conclusion, the argument fails to provide adequate evidence to support its claim and rendering its conclusion void of merit.
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: 14 15
No. of Words: 316 350
No. of Characters: 1710 1500
No. of Different Words: 154 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.216 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.411 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.935 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 133 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.571 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.997 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.351 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.635 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, conversely, finally, first, firstly, however, if, look, moreover, second, secondly, so, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1746.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 316.0 441.139720559 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.5253164557 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0257268934 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 536.4 705.55239521 76% => 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: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.4877050715 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.714285714 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5714285714 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.35714285714 5.70786347227 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.223631946559 0.218282227539 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0688853361579 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0830044769833 0.0701772020484 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117347223752 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.109854779052 0.0628817314937 175% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.09 12.5979740519 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.22 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.