The memo provided by a vice-president of a large company takes the issue of which construction company to choose for their contemplated new building project. He avers that Zeta company would be a better bang for the buck instead of Alpha, citing that previous projects by these companies show Zeta to be the winner: low energy costs, lesser maintenance cost, although, the construction expenses being slightly more. Though the argument may have merit, the author presents an ill-reasoned argument, based on precarious premises and assumptions, lacking any substantial evidences to quantify and prove his hypothesis. Based solely on the claim offered, the conclusion is invalid.
The primary issue with the argument lies in the unsubstantiated premises. The author cites that the Zeta company has 30% more construction costs, 50% less maintenance expenses and consumes lesser energy than the building constructed by the Alpha company. Any comparsion between these three aforementioned costs is absent. Consequently, there is insufficient information to conclude about the performance of these two companies, based on the numbers provided. The performance of both the buildings constructed by Alpha and Zeta has not been comprehensively evaluated. Evidences such as functionality provided, the time for construction, services offered post the inaugaration of these buildings have to be considered.
In addition, the unproven assumptions of the author further compromise the soundness of his assertion. The similarity of the New building project with the formerly built ones has not been mentioned. Perhaps, the novel construction might not resemble the older ones, and the costs will be drastically astray to make any logical conclusions. Furthermore, the writer considers only these two companies for undertaking the new project. These might not be the leading consrtuction companies, or the cheapest ones. Perhaps, the upcoming project might not be viable to be completed by any of Alpha and Zeta, because of the large-scale nature, complexity of the new project.
Granted that the assertion of the author lacks evidentiary support, it is not to say that the entire argument is without merit. To improve his argument, the writer should provide specific numbers rather than ballpark estimates, and a comprehensive analysis gauging the performance of the ex-projects undertaken bby ALpha and Zeta, to start with. Further, he must establish the similarity of the new buildings in light of the previous one, to deduce anything conclusive. In addition, exploring other companies which can serve a similar or possibly better job should be done to set the claim on a sound footing.
In sum, the vice-president draws a general claim without sound reaasoning. No quantification of data, vague assumptions that remain unproven, and logical flaws render his conclusion invalid. In order to convince the reader, he must rephrase his argument, augment claims with rational evidences and explicate the relationships. Otherwise, the claim is likely to persuade a few reasders.
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: Any comparsion between these three aforementioned costs is absent.
Error: comparsion Suggestion: compassion
Sentence: Evidences such as functionality provided, the time for construction, services offered post the inaugaration of these buildings have to be considered.
Error: inaugaration Suggestion: inauguration
Sentence: These might not be the leading consrtuction companies, or the cheapest ones.
Error: consrtuction Suggestion: construction
Sentence: In sum, the vice-president draws a general claim without sound reaasoning.
Error: reaasoning Suggestion: reasoning
Sentence: Otherwise, the claim is likely to persuade a few reasders.
Error: reasders Suggestion: readers
--------------------
flaws:
need to argue according to the topic. here go the arguments:
argument 1:
Although the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build. However, that building's expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha's.
argument 2:
Furthermore, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction.
argument 3:
Such data indicate that we should use Zeta rather than Alpha for our contemplated new building project, even though Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 470 350
No. of Characters: 2527 1500
No. of Different Words: 234 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.656 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.377 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.047 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 189 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 158 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 119 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 75 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.583 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.984 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.292 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.272 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.483 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.068 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 600, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...stantial evidences to quantify and prove his hypothesis. Based solely on the clai...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, furthermore, if, may, so, in addition, such as, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2604.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 470.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.54042553191 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65612321451 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13982004196 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 244.0 204.123752495 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.51914893617 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 801.0 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.2253083338 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.5 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5833333333 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.125 5.70786347227 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 14.0 4.67664670659 299% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.218438183167 0.218282227539 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0595472552189 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0742551493843 0.0701772020484 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124245899393 0.128457276422 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0811877767316 0.0628817314937 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.85 12.5979740519 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.45 8.32208582834 114% => OK
difficult_words: 145.0 98.500998004 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.