The following is a letter from the parent of a private school student to the principal of that school:
Last year, Kensington Academy turned over management of its cafeteria to a private vendor, Swift Nutrition. This company serves low-fat, low-calorie meals that students do not find enjoyable – my son and several of his friends came home yesterday complaining about the lunch options. While the intent of hiring Swift may have been to cause students to eat healthier foods, the plan is just going to cause students to bring their own, less healthy lunches instead of eating cafeteria food. If Swift is not replaced with another vendor, there will be serious health consequences for Kensington students.
According to the letter of the parent towards the principal of school indicates that a private vendor named as Swift Nutrition should be replaced by another vendor in order to avoid the serious health consequences of that school and certain assumptions are made in order to provide the recommendation. But some questions must be answered in order to validate those assumptions, otherwise, the recommendation might not be fruitful.
At first, it is mentioned that Swift Nutrition serves low-fat and low-calorie food that many students might not find enjoyable and the child of that parent, who wrote the letter, complained about the available options of food. Therefore, it is not clear whether it is the quality of the food or reluctance of the child and his friends to eat healthy foods. It is quite common that children will not appreciate those low-fat and low-calorie food but those foods are healthy as mentioned by the letter writer. It might also happen that on that particular day the child and his friends could not get their favorite food from Swift Nutrition because the food they preferred might have finished before they reach the cafeteria or on that particular day the cafeteria did not make that particular food due to lack of ingredients. In that case, it is important to mention whether the aforementioned scenario is happening for a quite long time or it just a one-day scenario, which actually do not hold an issue comapre to other days.
Secondly, it is assumed bu the writer of the letter that if the students find that there is lack of food options in the cafeteria of the school, they will be inclined to bring less healthy food from home. But there is no mention of how many students are dependent on the cafeteria for their lunch and how many are completely dependent on homemade food. It might happen that some student's parents can not afford the payment of lunch at the school cafeteria and they are serving healthy food to their children from home and those children are quite healthy even though they are dependent on their homemade food. On the other hand, as food is canteen is meant to be for all child, so they are focusing on the health of large quantity of student rather than one student.
Finally, it is assumed that the replacement of a vendor by another vendor will not be time-consuming and the decision can be taken by management within the shortest possible time. Although, it might happen that while the decision period is continued, the cafeteria might be closed, will might hamper the lunch option of many students who are dependent on cafeteria lunch.
To sum up, it is imperative to answer the aforementioned question to validate the assumptions and then afterwards the prediction made by the letter writer can be reasonable.
- Company management should conduct routine monitoring of all employee e-mail correspondence. Such monitoring will reduce the waste of resources such as time and system capacity, as well as protect the company from lawsuits. 50
- The following is a letter from the parent of a private school student to the principal of that school:Last year, Kensington Academy turned over management of its cafeteria to a private vendor, Swift Nutrition. This company serves low-fat, low-calorie meal 49
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household. 66
- The following appeared in a memo from New Ventures Consulting to the president of HobCo, Inc., a chain of hobby shops."Our team has completed its research on suitable building sites for a new HobCo hobby Shop in the city of Grilldon. We discovered th 55
- People should question the rule of authority as opposed to accepting them passively. 66
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, if, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, while, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 28.8173652695 153% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2320.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 474.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89451476793 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68078301797 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.42194092827 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 711.9 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
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: 33.0 22.8473053892 144% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 57.2199479987 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 165.714285714 119.503703932 139% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.8571428571 23.324526521 145% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.21428571429 5.70786347227 144% => 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 : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.193970816807 0.218282227539 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0724967103718 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0684320765241 0.0701772020484 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0992710974064 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0487934603803 0.0628817314937 78% => OK
automated_readability_index: 18.5 14.3799401198 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.44 48.3550499002 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.67 12.5979740519 93% => 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: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.2 11.1389221557 136% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.9071856287 160% => OK
What are above readability scores?
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 474 350
No. of Characters: 2266 1500
No. of Different Words: 193 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.666 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.781 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.629 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 154 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 33.857 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.576 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.857 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.37 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.638 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.086 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5