"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."
In this paragraph, the author insists changing of pest control company in charge of warehouse in Palm City. Though, this claim is unconvincing because it inferred from several unsubstantiated assumptions without valid evidence. In order to make this argument reliable, close scrutiny that bolsters authors claim needs to be added. Otherwise, it is vulnerable to criticism.
First and the most, mentioning comparing the value of damage of two storages in two different regions, the author presumes that two warehouse is in the same condition. However, this presumption is rather unwarranted if there is no more evidence which supports equivalence of terms. So, the author needs to ferret out whether the difference of two places exists or not. If factors which can affect products like weather, precipitation, sunlight or damage of building aren’t same, this presumption is considered as not valid. But, proof of identical terms can give legitimacy.
Another problem of this opinion is about products in the warehouse. The author make reference about amount of loss of products, not initial state of amount and sort of product in two areas. To evaluate whether this supposition is valid or not, we need to know if there is no difference in types, quality and quantity of products. If products are inferior and less quantity in Palm city than in the other city, it means that they are more prone to decay and their sum will be greater than other places. If not, this supposition will be appropriate grounds.
Last but no least, it is possible to guess that implication that expenses for control services is less than the damage of products undergirds the passage about price charged by Fly-away. However, the actual amount of money is needed to fortify this insistent. If money for services exceeds property damage, then, they are rather not to change their company. However, the evidence that damage of products is more expensive than the difference between two companies will undermine this supposition.
In conclusion, the argument lacks clarity as many details seem to be omitted for such an important issue. To better assess the argument, the author needs to provide more supplementary investigation including the condition of products, terms of warehouse and, actually profit and loss of changing. Lacking such information, the authors claim remains far-fetched.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 381 350
No. of Characters: 1934 1500
No. of Different Words: 189 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.418 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.076 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.727 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.143 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.705 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.274 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.507 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.037 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 270, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: scrutiny
...n order to make this argument reliable, close scrutiny that bolsters authors claim needs to be...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, so, then, in conclusion, sort of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2006.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 380.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27894736842 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41515443553 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83197023319 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531578947368 0.468620217663 113% => OK
syllable_count: 622.8 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.2825395687 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.5238095238 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0952380952 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.19047619048 5.70786347227 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.0842946556664 0.218282227539 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0252335500098 0.0743258471296 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0543954701267 0.0701772020484 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0495648125114 0.128457276422 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0376122094934 0.0628817314937 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.89 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.