At first glance, the author provides a reasonable case for Acme to purchase the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course for its employees. Upon closer inspection, many of his supporting arguments are actually assumptions that might not be based in fact. The facts underlying these assumptions must be evaluated in order to determine whether the prescribed course of action is appropriate.
First, the author assumes the veracity of the testimonials provided by other companies in favor of the Easy Read course, and that these touted benefits are applicable to Acme. He vaguely says that many other companies stated that the Easy Read Speed Reading Course improved productivity, but he provides no evidence to back their claims. Other companies are unlikely to admit that their expenditures were erroneous, so response bias indicates that satisfied companies are more likely to discuss the course. Many companies who participated might not have seen these benefits, and therefore opted not to mention it. Concrete evidence is necessary. Furthermore, the author assumes the relevance of these testimonials without specifying the identities of these companies. These other firms might be in entirely different industries from Acme Publishing Company. Positive results for an engineering company do not necessarily indicate that employees of a publishing company would reap similar benefits from such a course.
Furthermore, the author assumes that individual case studies are indicative of the overall efficacy of the speed reading program. He cites that one graduate successfully read a 500-page report in two hours, and that another graduate had a meteoric rise form assistant manager to vice president of a company in under a year. He provides no indication that these successes can be attributed to the speed reading course they took. The graduates could have been fully capable of performing these feats before taking the course, therefore rendering their participation irrelevant. Further, the success of two individuals is not indicative of a typical outcome from taking a speed reading course.
Statistics indicating improved metrics of performance for a larger population are necessary to make an informed decision about the benefits and effectiveness of the proposed speed-reading course.
Finally, the author assumes that if these potential benefits hold, then registering for the course is an economically sound decision. There is no indication that a potential increase in productivity would yield monetary returns of more than the requisite $500 per employee. The author also justifies this claim by mentioning the inclusion of a three-week seminar in Spruce City and a lifelong subscription to the Easy Read newsletter. Allowing employees to take three weeks of vacation time to participate in this seminar is unlikely to yield three weeks of increased productivity over an employee's tenure at Acme, if this time off is even feasible in Acme's circumstances. Likewise, he provides no indication that the newsletter would be beneficial to the employees.
The author of the argument provides support for his conclusion only in the form of assumptions. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that testimonials by other companies are accurate or relevant, that the majority of people who take the course see concrete benefits, or that the decision to purchase this course for employees is fiscally sound. Without further evidence in support of the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course, purchasing admission for employees is not justifiable.
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
1. Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
Clearly, Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of our employees to take the Easy Read course.
2. the argument 1 and argument 2 can be argued together:
Many other companies have recently stated that having their employees take the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity. One graduate of the course was able to read a 500-page report in only two hours; another graduate rose from an assistant manager to vice president of the company in under a year.
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 545 350
No. of Characters: 2943 1500
No. of Different Words: 263 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.832 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.4 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.965 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 228 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 191 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 152 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 99 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.8 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.915 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.52 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.295 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.483 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.09 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, furthermore, if, likewise, so, then, therefore, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 28.8173652695 149% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3004.0 2260.96107784 133% => OK
No of words: 545.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5119266055 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83169070408 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03130928092 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 204.123752495 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478899082569 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 967.5 705.55239521 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.75269404 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.16 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.68 5.70786347227 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 20.0 8.20758483034 244% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 6.88822355289 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.304982849549 0.218282227539 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0862759045501 0.0743258471296 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0693280044017 0.0701772020484 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155776497247 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0779737862984 0.0628817314937 124% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.3550499002 69% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 12.5979740519 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.08 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 152.0 98.500998004 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.