SuperCorp recently moved its headquarters to Corporateville. The recent surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville prove that Corporateville is a superior place to live then Middlesburg, the home of SuperCorp’s current headquarters. Moreover, Middleburg is a predominately urban area and according to an employee survey, SuperCorp has determined that its workers prefer to live in an area that is not urban. Finally, Corporateville has lower taxes than Middlesburg, making it not only a safer place to work but also a cheaper one. Therefore, Supercorp clearly made the best decision.
While the SuperCorp company might made a good decision in moving its headquarter from Middlesburg to Corporateville, this author's argument fails to put some significant assumptions into consideration. It is obvious that crowded cities and places may serve better situation for corporations due to huge number of demand than less populated areas, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not cogent enough to decide whether corporation decision was the best or not.
The author mentions that increase in numbers of homeowners in Corporateville makes it a superior place to live, but he or she fails to establish a logical relation between large population and superiority of the place for working. Whereas, It may hold true that population is regarded as one of important indication of civilization and development, and in aggregate a better place to live, it does not necessarily make it a superior place for working. For instance, a place with huge amount of population may have larger natural parks or provide more facilities and services, but it does not mean it can be considered as a superior place to work, since competition between companies in such places are usually significantly arduous task.
Citing survey of employees, the author reports emplyees’s interests for non-urban place like Corporateville to live. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey shows that workers prefer to live in non-urban places, but there is not any clue that if employees tend to work in non-urban areas like Corporateville. Furthermore, survey might have contained limited questions about employees’s priorities for working. For example, we don’t know working in urban or non-urban place is among their major priority or minor ones. Likewise, it is not obvious whether the sample has been representative of whole employees or staffs of corporation or just some workers in manager department or other sections. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it cannot be used to effectively back the author's argument.
Moreover, the author mentions that lower taxes in Corporateville makes it safe place to work, however, he or she does not present how lower taxes can influence working situation to a better and safer place. For example, lower taxes in Corporateville may make corporation company to lower its sell price, consequently the overall revenue of company will be as much as or even less than when it was in Middlesburg. Similarly, there is not any survey or valid information upon other places with even lower taxes than Corporateville. Although, cheaper place with lower taxes may have positive effects on creating good working situation, this factor alone does not certainly make a perfect atmosphere for a corporation.
Populated place with lower taxes can lead to building perfect place for corporation to work, reap a great profit, and increase their income. For these reasons, company might make a good decision to move to Corporateville. However, based on mentioned questions and assumptions challenging the argument, the author cannot claim it was truly the best selection.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 865, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... cannot be used to effectively back the authors argument. Moreover, the author mention...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'consequently', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'likewise', 'may', 'moreover', 'similarly', 'so', 'thus', 'whereas', 'while', 'for example', 'for instance']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.240418118467 0.25644967241 94% => OK
Verbs: 0.144599303136 0.15541462614 93% => OK
Adjectives: 0.116724738676 0.0836205057962 140% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0557491289199 0.0520304965353 107% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0383275261324 0.0272364105082 141% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.116724738676 0.125424944231 93% => OK
Participles: 0.0296167247387 0.0416121511921 71% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.09477899829 2.79052419416 111% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0331010452962 0.026700313972 124% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0644599303136 0.113004496875 57% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0243902439024 0.0255425247493 95% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00696864111498 0.0127820249294 55% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3186.0 2731.13054187 117% => OK
No of words: 506.0 446.07635468 113% => OK
Chars per words: 6.29644268775 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7428307748 4.57801047555 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.371541501976 0.378187486979 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.298418972332 0.287650121315 104% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.223320158103 0.208842608468 107% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.164031620553 0.135150697306 121% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09477899829 2.79052419416 111% => OK
Unique words: 245.0 207.018472906 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.48418972332 0.469332199767 103% => OK
Word variations: 56.5111070613 52.1807786196 108% => OK
How many sentences: 19.0 20.039408867 95% => OK
Sentence length: 26.6315789474 23.2022227129 115% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.8728479018 57.7814097925 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 167.684210526 141.986410481 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6315789474 23.2022227129 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.789473684211 0.724660767414 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 56.4734761806 51.9672348444 109% => OK
Elegance: 1.6204379562 1.8405768891 88% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.373072374246 0.441005458295 85% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.141533215229 0.135418324435 105% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0752513647693 0.0829849096947 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.551810276567 0.58762219726 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.132658613375 0.147661913831 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.153368455559 0.193483328276 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0874693962827 0.0970749176394 90% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.318482473241 0.42659136922 75% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0358466603881 0.0774707102158 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.247192625249 0.312017818177 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0345448428317 0.0698173142475 49% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.33743842365 144% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 11.0 6.46551724138 170% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.