The following memorandum was sent to the President of Arbayo Manufacturing from the human resources director.
“In order to reduce the turnover expense to the company associated with recruiting, hiring, and training, Arbayo should adopt a program of screening prospective new employees with multiple-choice tests designed to assess intelligence, emotional aptitude, and overall interests. This technique has clearly benefited Wixmer Bank: five years ago, two hundred recently hired Wixmer employees volunteered to undergo such testing. Five years later, over 80% of those employees were still employed at Wixmer, whereas the company as a whole had a retention rate of only 50%.”
Critique the reasoning used in this argument. You are not being asked to discuss your point of view on the argument. You should identify and analyze the central elements of the argument, the underlying assumptions that are being made, and any supporting information that is given. Your critique can also discuss other information that would strengthen or weaken the argument or make it more logical.
In a memorandum from the human resources director concluded that to reduce the turnover expense on recruiting, hiring, and training, the Arbayo Company should adopt the Multiple-choice tests as a method assess intelligence, emotional aptitude, and overall interests. The assumption was based on the reduction of the Wixmer Bank. However, before the assertions are properly evaluated, the following three assumptions have to justify with proper evidence.
Firstly, the author assumes that if the multiple-choice test adopted the turnover expense decreased that issued on hiring, training or recruiting. Perhaps it may help one of those sectors, maybe did not work on others. Even if the MC method succeeded one time after that people sort out the technique and there left no specialty in that method and maybe the selection based on a vague basis as only one type of method applied on the selection of employees. If either assumption has merit, the original argument significantly weakened.
Secondly, the author assumes that Wixmer Bank and Arbayo Company have similar turnover expense issue and a similar structure for hiring or training people respectively. Perhaps both the Arbayo Company and Wixmer bank fundamentally different from each other. The employee numbers are different, maybe wixmer bank has fewer employees than the arbayo company. If the above scenarios are true, then the argument is unwarranted weakened.
Thirdly, the author mentioned that after five years 80% of employees still in the bank. There are possibilities that the assuming numbers are not scientifically analyzed. Even if it is true, it is possible that there are 2000 employees in that bank, but only 200 are counted, which 1% of the total employees are and all of them are the higher officials. Al last the bank has 50% retention rate and it is possible that next year that changed due to rapid resignation or maybe employees resigned from the company. However, if the above assumptions are true then the original argument did not hold water.
In conclusion, the argument as it is stands is significantly flawed due to unwarranted assumptions. However, if the director justified the aforementioned assumptions with compelling evidence which are properly evaluated in systematic research then it can be possible to evaluate the recommended conclusion about the use of the multiple-choice method.
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: 18 15
No. of Words: 375 350
No. of Characters: 1958 1500
No. of Different Words: 182 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.401 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.221 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.905 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.833 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.484 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.311 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.539 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.073 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 32, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'resources'' or 'resource's'?
Suggestion: resources'; resource's
In a memorandum from the human resources director concluded that to reduce the t...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 455, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s have to justify with proper evidence. Firstly, the author assumes that if the ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, in conclusion, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2030.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 375.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.41333333333 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40055868397 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98857082157 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.498666666667 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 633.6 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.7516642242 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.777777778 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8333333333 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.38888888889 5.70786347227 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.191230320162 0.218282227539 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0550953118481 0.0743258471296 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0972173730818 0.0701772020484 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115644353486 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.121312970491 0.0628817314937 193% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.