The author argues that in order to mitigate the unemployment problem of the town, they should encourage Autotech to build its manufacturing plant there. He further states that the Hillview landfill, which has been undeveloped for decades is the perfect site for the plant and such a plant would employ many of Hillview residents left jobless after Computech closed its facility last year. He suggests that the City Council should authorize a large campaign and offer significant tax incentives to attract the company. However, there appears several unanswered questions which need to be adressed to determine the persuasiveness of the author's arguments and evaluate his suggestion.
First, the Hillview residents who have been left unemployed after Computech's closure of its facility last year might not be suitable for the staffing of a automobile plant. It is mentioned that Computech was a software programming company while Autotech is an automobile manufacturing company. While they may be overlap in some jobs like facility management and operational structures, most of them between these two are different. A software company is more likely to hire software or computer engineers while a automobile plant would likely employ mechanical engineers. Unless further evidence on how Computech's erstwhile employees suit Autotech's staffing needs, is presented, the author's argument that the automobile plant would employ thousands of Hillview residents who are left unemployed due to closure of Computech's national facility, stands questionable and arguable.
Second, the author suggests to use the Hillview landfill, which has remained undeveloped for decades, for development of the automobile manufacturing plant. However, the question pertinent to this is why other manufacturing companies did not try setting up their units in the landfill earlier. There might be significant challenges in construction of factories in the landfill and this has been the most important factor which has prevented industrial growth in that area. Moreover, the author does not provide any details on how the landfill is best suited for Autotech's manufacturing plant. Therefore, just because that land is available, the author sounds presumptous in believing that Autotech will be willing to use the landfill for their purposes.
Furthermore, the question on how Autotech's automobile manufacturing plant would solve the unemployment problem in the town remains unanswered. What specifically will guarantee that Autotech will not employ outsiders to their plant but rather depend on the residents of the town for establishing their workforce is not mentioned anywhere in the memo. Unless contracts or agreements exist between the town's authorities and the company, that guarantee such employment to the natives, the assumption that such a manufacturing plant will be to the benefit of the people does not hold water. Under such a circumstance, it is not prudent for the City Council to spend money in organization campaigns, or offer tax incentives unless the company agrees to employ native residents.
In conclusion, the establishment of the automobile manufacturing plant of Autotech in the city of Hillview might adequately solve the unemployment problem prevalent there and provide jobs to thousands of residents who were left jobless due to Computech's closing of its national facilitylast year. However, as it stands now, the author's arguments stand unpersuasive based on certain questions that need to be answered in order to evaluate the prospect of organizing campaigns and providing tax incentives to attract the company. The author must show how the erstwhile employees of Computech suit the staffing needs of Autotech. He must present evidence that suggests how Hillview landfill is best suited for the plant and that the company will be willing to set up their operational facilities there and also put proper contracts and agreements in place that would ensure that the plant actually employs native people and solves the unemployment issue.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 621 350
No. of Characters: 3382 1500
No. of Different Words: 252 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.992 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.446 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.96 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 259 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 220 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 172 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 114 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.227 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.742 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.339 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.339 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.11 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 154, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ght not be suitable for the staffing of a automobile plant. It is mentioned that ...
^
Line 2, column 511, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...re software or computer engineers while a automobile plant would likely employ me...
^
Line 2, column 683, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...techs staffing needs, is presented, the authors argument that the automobile plant woul...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, therefore, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3424.0 2260.96107784 151% => OK
No of words: 621.0 441.139720559 141% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.51368760064 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.991980728 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99146655297 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 259.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.417069243156 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1050.3 705.55239521 149% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 61.9594808946 57.8364921388 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 155.636363636 119.503703932 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.2272727273 23.324526521 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.09090909091 5.70786347227 89% => 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: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.353571892398 0.218282227539 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11891511621 0.0743258471296 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0987860604699 0.0701772020484 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.229394936697 0.128457276422 179% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0755947246569 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.6 14.3799401198 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 48.3550499002 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 12.5979740519 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 98.500998004 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.