The following recommendation was made by the Human Resources Manager to the board of directors of the Fancy Toy Company. “In the last three quarters of this year, under the leadership of our President Pat Salvo, our profits have fallen considerably. Thus, we should ask for her resignation in return for a generous severance package. In Pat’s place, we should appoint Rosa Winnings. Rosa is currently President of Starlight Jewelry, a company whose profits have increased dramatically over the past several years. Although we will have to pay Rosa twice the salary that Pat has been receiving, it will be well worth it because we can soon expect our profits to rise considerably.”
The author of the argument claims to replace existing President of Toy Fancy Company Pat Salvo with Rosa Winnings, current President of Starlight Jewelry. However, the claim is not insightful about reasons for it besides troubles in generating profit for the company. Moreover, it doesn’t take into consideration myriad of factors and comprehensive reasons that must be taken into account before arriving to final conclusion.
Firstly, the author assumes that both presidents have equal knowledge about Fancy Toy Company. Rosa Winnings and Pat Salvo each are running different line of business. While one involves in jewelry business, the other is involved in toy making. This comparison is completely unreasonable. How can anyone know about someone else’s business unless they have run it? Rosa Winnings might be able to run jewelry business because she might have zeal for it and know ins-and-outs of the business from top to bottom but might not be able to perform well in business as it might lie outside her circle of competency.
Secondly, the performance is taken of last three quarters only. No account prior to last three quarters is given. There is a fairly good probability that the business was highly lucrative back then but might be undergoing various structural or supply chain reforms. Moreover, there are also chances that production may be limited or halted or the final finished product might be unable to reach end user. Likewise, no one knows what will happen in the next quarter. It might once again get sound and generate humongous profits. How can one evaluate the performance and oust someone on the basis of three quarters without giving justified and thorough reasons apart from lack of profit? Also, there are chances that the company might have sold various goods and credit and are awaiting receivables. The author presents no information mentioned about uncollected receivables or the books of accounts nor any facts or other related figures.
Thirdly, it is assumed that Rosa Winnings, if elected will continue to thrive as President and generate profits for toy making company. According to the author, there seems to be no flaw or even minute discrepancies in the plan. While Rosa Winnings succeeded in her role as President, the precise reasons for the profit of her jewelry business aren’t mentioned. Was it her leadership that brought revenues to the company or was that the general trend of the entire sector? Moreover, it is a common saying that what goes up must come down. Taking that into account, the revenues generated from sale might drop down substantially in the coming quarters and then the author might suggest someone else instead of Rosa Winnings to appoint as President of company if generating profits was the only criteria to appoint someone as President. Moreover, the reasons for giving her twice the salary might not be proven that fruitful after all. Instead, the excess amount could have been spent in improving the quality of goods manufactured or streamlining the business as a whole or spent on customer feedback or giving bonuses or incentives to employees which might motivate them to boost sales which in turn might fetch more revenue.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, firstly, however, if, likewise, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, well, while, after all, apart from
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 11.1786427146 224% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2697.0 2260.96107784 119% => OK
No of words: 525.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13714285714 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78673985869 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65022550703 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 270.0 204.123752495 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514285714286 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 840.6 705.55239521 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => 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: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.1310895564 57.8364921388 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.730769231 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1923076923 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.84615384615 5.70786347227 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.152083047997 0.218282227539 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0477529174571 0.0743258471296 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0437947570795 0.0701772020484 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100826455705 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.012456168369 0.0628817314937 20% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 98.500998004 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.