The author of the passage concludes that it is better to deal with Apian Highways for paving all the access roads of new shopping malls. This conclusion is flawed for numerous reasons. This argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To justify this conclusion, the author reasons that a section of Route 40, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago, is still in good condition than the route 101 which has been constructed by Intention roadways. However, scrutiny of all possible evidence reveals that it provides little credible support towards the author's conclusion. Hence, the argument is incomplete or unsubstantiated.
First of all, the author readily assumes that the two roads are the same which is nothing but a mere assumption without any solid evidence. For, example environmental conditions may not be the same for two roads. We know environmental factors like a flood, drought has a significant effect on the longevity of roads and highways. Besides, the author does not provide traffic information regarding the two roads. It may happen that road 101, had to undergo a huge amount of traffic in which drastically leads to the damage the road in a modicum amount of time. Therefore, the argument would have been more convincing if the author explicitly states that two roads have the same environment and traffic.
Next, the author claims that the apian highway recently purchased new machines, which will enhance the quality of the work. this is an unwarranted and unsupported claim that it does not demonstrate any clear and concrete correlation between Quality work and the Machine. To illustrate further, Intention Roadway can buy the same machine and if this happens, is it viable to choose intention Roadway? However, If the argument had provided evidence that shows the specifications and compares the machines then it would have been more convincing.
Finally, the author notes that the Apian highway has appointed a new control manager. The survey of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support towards authors opinions in several critical aspects, but raises some sceptical questions. How can we justify the quality of a work by its control manager? The quality of a work depends on numerous factors like workers ability, proper planning, proper materials etc. Moreover, the author does not provide any necessary information regarding new managers previous backdrop, working experience, efficiency etc. hence, these pieces of information strengthen the author's conclusion.
To recapitulate, the author's assumption is completely flawed. To accord with authors opinions, the author should provide more concrete and cogent evidence like the environmental and traffic similarities of the two roads, demonstrate the correlation between machine and work quality.
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
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.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 451 350
No. of Characters: 2354 1500
No. of Different Words: 217 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.608 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.22 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.724 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 191 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 157 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.476 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.684 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.515 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.073 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 450, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s still in good condition than the route 101 which has been constructed by Intent...
^^
Line 1, column 610, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...des little credible support towards the authors conclusion. Hence, the argument is inco...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 125, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...h will enhance the quality of the work. this is an unwarranted and unsupported claim...
^^^^
Line 8, column 374, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'workers'' or 'worker's'?
Suggestion: workers'; worker's
...a work depends on numerous factors like workers ability, proper planning, proper materi...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 622, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...se pieces of information strengthen the authors conclusion. To recapitulate, the aut...
^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 22, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ors conclusion. To recapitulate, the authors assumption is completely flawed. To acc...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, still, then, therefore, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2422.0 2260.96107784 107% => OK
No of words: 451.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37028824834 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60833598836 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80839984681 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494456762749 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 740.7 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.9736488533 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.916666667 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7916666667 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.83333333333 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.132136121655 0.218282227539 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0340233125266 0.0743258471296 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.093057988902 0.0701772020484 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0766424059798 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0882090316106 0.0628817314937 140% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.94 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 98.500998004 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.