The following is a recommendation from the personnel director to the president of Acme Publishing Company.
"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. Obviously, the faster you can read, the more information you can absorb in a single workday. Moreover, Easy Read would cost Acme only $500 per employee - a small price to pay when you consider the benefits. Included in this fee is a three-week seminar in Spruce City and a lifelong subscription to the Easy Read newsletter. Clearly, Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of our employees to take the Easy Read course."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In the abovementioned argument, it is stated that Acme publishing company should put a requirement for its employee to take part in the Easy read course, which is considered advantageous for the company. The author has come to this conclusion based on the achievements of some of the erstwhile attendance of this course. However, more evidence should be prepared before this recommendation can be properly evaluated.
First, the background and resume of former attendance of this seminar should be represented. Perhaps the interests and talents of participants on this occasion led to their outstanding performance after their graduation. For instance, a graduate who could read a 500-page report after passing the course may read a 200-page report before their attendance in this course, which is an impossible task for an average person. It is possible that the person who was promoted to the vice president of the company was supposed to promote, even before their attendance in this course. If either of these scenarios has merit, then the original argument's conclusion is significantly weakened.
Moreover, the learning process is entirely different from reading ability which is not differentiated in the argument. The personnel director of Acreme company prematurely assumes that faster you can read more information you can absorb in a single day. However, this might not be the case. Perhaps one person could read a 500-paper report in a workday but could not remember even a single page of it. Hence the efficiency of reading and assimilating information is an entirely different factor that should be investigated in detail. If the above is true, the argument does not hold water.
Finally, even if all of the former assumptions are true, how could one guarantee that this company's investment is beneficial and the company can return its investment? It is possible that 30% of employees leave the company in the next year and it results in a significant loss for the company. Perhaps some employees have little aptitude in reading and participating in this course will not culminate in astonishing advantages for the company. If the aforementioned scenarios prove true, the author's assertion is invalid, and the company will confront a considerable loss.
In conclusion, as it stands now, the recommendation is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. The author needs to provide additional information, perhaps in the form of a systematic research study, to fully evaluate the viability of the recommendation to benefit the company.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 410 350
No. of Characters: 2129 1500
No. of Different Words: 198 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.5 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.193 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.063 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 166 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 129 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 95 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.793 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.296 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.296 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.065 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 273, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...conclusion based on the achievements of some of the erstwhile attendance of this course. Ho...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 635, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
... scenarios has merit, then the original arguments conclusion is significantly weakened. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 10, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...on is significantly weakened. Moreover, the learning process is entirely differe...
^^
Line 3, column 403, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... not remember even a single page of it. Hence the efficiency of reading and assimilat...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 18, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
... does not hold water. Finally, even if all of the former assumptions are true, how could ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 492, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...forementioned scenarios prove true, the authors assertion is invalid, and the company w...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, then, while, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2176.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 410.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30731707317 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49982852243 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11220276779 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49756097561 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 696.6 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.9698364654 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.8 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => 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: 0.233391353504 0.218282227539 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.06150469824 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.056661821405 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121258550406 0.128457276422 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0505011681079 0.0628817314937 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => 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: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.