"The surface of a section of Route 101, paved just two years ago by Good Intentions Roadways, is now badly cracked with a number of dangerous potholes. In another part of the state, a section of Route 40, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago, is still in good condition. In a demonstration of their continuing commitment to quality, Appian Roadways recently purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery and hired a new quality-control manager. Therefore, I recommend hiring Appian Roadways to construct the access roads for all our new shopping malls. I predict that our Appian access roads will not have to be repaired for at least four years."
The assumption of the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls around the country is written in the memo about assigning the construction to all access road of all shopping malls to Appian Roadways sounds illogically convening several reasons. The vice president ignored important information and some question needed to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation likely to have the predicted results.
The first important question is needed to be asked is that Route 101 and Route 44 identical in surrounding condition. Indeed, it is quite possible commuting on Route 101 very high, which decreases the durability of roads. In addition, Route 101 can are located the place, which is rainy or stormy most days of a year, so the rate of erosion is at the high level. Without considering this possible scenario, the vice presidents cannot justifiably conclude that quality of Route 44 is higher than Route 101.
The second question should be answered is about features of the new paving machinery. the author does not provide a guarantee that this new machine can be more effective than the old machines. In addition, it is possible employees are not trained to work with this paving machine, and this can have negative effects on the quality of the road. Moreover, the vice president does not mention that how many of the new machines are at the disposal of Appian Roadways. In fact, it may the number of these so few that affect the function of Appian Roadways increasingly. In short, siزne the argument relies on the limited information, I cannot take the author‘s reasons seriously.
The third question is that can the new quality-control manager be effective in building roads with high quality? We need to know more about the manager’s profiles and his proficiency. It is entirely possible that the manager has not sufficient experience, which impacts the function of Appian Roadways negatively. In addition, the manager may have not the related education of this business, and this can decrease quality significantly. Since the author does not answer this question, his conclusion is not convincing.
To sum up, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing. To strengthen the argument, the vice presidents must provide more information about the quality-control manager’s profiles, the number of new paving machine and its features. To assess better the recommendation, we need to know about all effective factors for the quality of roads.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ikely to have the predicted results. The first important question is needed to b...
^^^
Line 3, column 246, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'can' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'cans'.
Suggestion: cans
...bility of roads. In addition, Route 101 can are located the place, which is rainy o...
^^^
Line 5, column 87, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...t features of the new paving machinery. the author does not provide a guarantee tha...
^^^
Line 9, column 253, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...of new paving machine and its features. To assess better the recommendation, we ne...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'third', 'in addition', 'in fact', 'in short', 'to sum up']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.237472766885 0.25644967241 93% => OK
Verbs: 0.154684095861 0.15541462614 100% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0915032679739 0.0836205057962 109% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0501089324619 0.0520304965353 96% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0217864923747 0.0272364105082 80% => OK
Prepositions: 0.117647058824 0.125424944231 94% => OK
Participles: 0.0392156862745 0.0416121511921 94% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.97169905527 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0261437908497 0.026700313972 98% => OK
Particles: 0.00217864923747 0.001811407834 120% => OK
Determiners: 0.126361655773 0.113004496875 112% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0239651416122 0.0255425247493 94% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0108932461874 0.0127820249294 85% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2516.0 2731.13054187 92% => OK
No of words: 405.0 446.07635468 91% => OK
Chars per words: 6.21234567901 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.57801047555 98% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.397530864198 0.378187486979 105% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.306172839506 0.287650121315 106% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.234567901235 0.208842608468 112% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.155555555556 0.135150697306 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97169905527 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 207.018472906 93% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476543209877 0.469332199767 102% => OK
Word variations: 51.5767589185 52.1807786196 99% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 20.25 23.2022227129 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.6639832469 57.7814097925 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.8 141.986410481 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.25 23.2022227129 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.65 0.724660767414 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 50.8672839506 51.9672348444 98% => OK
Elegance: 1.74038461538 1.8405768891 95% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.327567607914 0.441005458295 74% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.143586330151 0.135418324435 106% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.065628964079 0.0829849096947 79% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.622627871879 0.58762219726 106% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.100435232675 0.147661913831 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.154737078331 0.193483328276 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0745588213475 0.0970749176394 77% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.456210822469 0.42659136922 107% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.104118326456 0.0774707102158 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.239910198762 0.312017818177 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0533494563073 0.0698173142475 76% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 7.0 2.82389162562 248% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => 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.