"Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our fast-food warehouse in Palm City, but last month we discovered that over $20,000 worth of food there had been destroyed by pest damage. Meanwhile, the Buzzoff Pest Control Company, which we have used for many years, continued to service our warehouse in Wintervale, and last month only $10,000 worth of the food stored there had been destroyed by pest damage. Even though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerably lower, our best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services."
The author proposes returning Buzzoff for all the company's pest control services to save money. He or she offers an interesting argument, but it suffers from some logical flaws and gaps in evidence. While the connections suggested are ostensibly reasonable, there are many other possible scenarios that should discourage the company from employing Buzzoff for all its pest control services.
To begin with, the author assumes that Buzzoff had superior performance because there was less damage in Wintervale comparing to damage in Palm city. However evaluating performance only by absolute number of damage could be misleading. We should also consider total value in warehouse to evaluate more precisely. For example, if food value in Palm city warehouse were $100,000 and $30,000 was total value of food in Wintervale we could say that Fly-Away had actually better achievement. What is more, the author assumes that environment in two cities are identical. Yet the author does not offer any reason to believe so. Palm City might have worse conditions to control pest. Its pest may be stronger than other cities because of several reasons: its peculiar climate, humidity of warehouse, etc. Therefore before we assess the performance of the companies, we need more information about conditions of the cities and warehouses.
Secondly, let us assume that Buzzoff actually performed better in identical environment last month. However we still can not conclude that employing Buzzoff will be economical. We should consider the fact that Fly-Away had shorter time to adapt comparing to Buzzoff. Fly-Away might need more times to show their ability. Fly-Away may achieve better results if they fully adapt to Palm City. What is more, one month is too short to determine the company's achievement. Last month's result may be exceptional for several reasons. For example, employers in Fly-Away might went on strike or there were too many rains to work properly in Palm city last month. Therefore we need prolonged data to determine whether Buzzoff is economical option or not.
Thirdly, the author also assumes that Buzzoff can maintain its quality of services regardless of their managing area. The Buzzoff might have small workers so it may not be suitable to manage all pest control services. If its performance deteriorates as their managing area spans, returning to Buzzoff for all pest control services could cause more damage. Therefore the author should provide information about its ability to maintain the performance regardless of working area.
Finally, let us assume though, that all assumptions above actually hold up. Then we are prompted to ask the price charged by each company. Even though Buzzoff can induce less damage comparing to other, its higher cost can outstrip the benefit. For example, if Buzzoff cost $50,000 more than Fly-Away for every month, adopting Fly-Away might be more economical even though Fly-Away cause $10,000 more damage every month.
To sum up, the author's assumption is logically flawed by above mentioned reasons. He or she should closely examine all the factors and conditions before arguing that employing Buzzoff will save money.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 30 15
No. of Words: 504 350
No. of Characters: 2611 1500
No. of Different Words: 227 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.738 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.181 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.534 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 205 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 161 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.8 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.799 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.289 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.494 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.143 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 151, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...rvale comparing to damage in Palm city. However evaluating performance only by absolute...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 464, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'bettered', 'welled'.
Suggestion: bettered; welled
...we could say that Fly-Away had actually better achievement. What is more, the author a...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 101, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...er in identical environment last month. However we still can not conclude that employin...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 654, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
... work properly in Palm city last month. Therefore we need prolonged data to determine whe...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 357, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ntrol services could cause more damage. Therefore the author should provide information a...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 16, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...e damage every month. To sum up, the authors assumption is logically flawed by above...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, third, thirdly, while, as to, for example, to begin with, to sum up, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.9520958084 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2673.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 504.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30357142857 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59115665544 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.468253968254 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 840.6 705.55239521 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 19.7664670659 157% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.5800748646 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.2258064516 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2580645161 23.324526521 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.64516129032 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.67664670659 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.268713732852 0.218282227539 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0711014802082 0.0743258471296 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0608220674377 0.0701772020484 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131875507446 0.128457276422 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0791908906134 0.0628817314937 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.16 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 98.500998004 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.