The author concludes that many companies have recently stated that having their employees take the easy read speed reading course has greatly improved their productivity. This conclusion is backed up with the evidence that the faster an employee can read, the more information the employee can absorb in a single workday. However, to be able to ascertain this conclusion by the author some questions must be raised and resolved to accept the conclusion.
Firstly, is it not possible that the promotion of the assistant manager to vice president happened coincidentally after the assistant manager took the reading course? For example, the assistant manager may have been due for promotion in December 2018 regardless of whether he took the reading course or not and that month just happened to equally correspond to a few months after he took the easy read reading course. Hence, the promotion would not have been hindered even if he did not take the reading course. This implies that except we can be sure that the completion of the reading course was the sole criteria for promotion, the author's argument is somewhat vague and weak.
Secondly, is it not also possible that the assistant manager lobbied his way to the vice president position either through blackmail or the president being indebted to him? For instance, the president of the company may be indebted to the assistant manager for a particular favour he has done for him in the past. If this is true, the assistant manager may have approached the president on this basis for promotion and due to the benevolence of the president he granted it outrightly. If this is true, then this weakens the conclusion that the author has presented that the reading course had anything to do with the promotion of the assistant manager to vice president.
Thirdly, is it not that the individual that read a 500- page report in two hours was as good as that before the reading course? There is no evidence to show that this individual was not as good as this in reading before he took the course. Moreover, he could have been taking multiple reading courses at the time he also took the Easy Speed Reading Course, hence the author assumed that the Easy Speed reading Course solely contributed to his reading prowess and increased efficiency. Therefore, this point also weakens the author's evidence and consequently his argument except it is clarified and resolved.
In conclusion, it is evident that the author's argument is flawed by the questions raised above. Thus, the author still has to properly address these questions discussed above before his argument and conclusion can be made valid and accepted without doubt. Perhaps, the author should carry out systematic research that takes all possible weakening made above assumptions into consideration.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 466 350
No. of Characters: 2304 1500
No. of Different Words: 200 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.646 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.944 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.575 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 175 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 136 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.889 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.054 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.722 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.38 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.628 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.275 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 637, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...as the sole criteria for promotion, the authors argument is somewhat vague and weak. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 682, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rs argument is somewhat vague and weak. Secondly, is it not also possible that t...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 39, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... In conclusion, it is evident that the authors argument is flawed by the questions rai...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, firstly, hence, however, if, incidentally, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, as to, for example, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 51.0 28.8173652695 177% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2353.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 466.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04935622318 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64618479453 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63961844109 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.43347639485 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 722.7 705.55239521 102% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.7849063067 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.722222222 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8888888889 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.3888888889 5.70786347227 200% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.317690694532 0.218282227539 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.118781135583 0.0743258471296 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.14759441463 0.0701772020484 210% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.19343613835 0.128457276422 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.140669198398 0.0628817314937 224% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.86 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.