Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams Realty is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents; in contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago I listed my home with Fitch, and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams Realty.
The argument claims that, among the two reality firms -Adam Reality and Fitch Reality, first one is superior then its rival. The author provides some reasons behind his/her argument. The author mentions about the number of agents, revenue and his/her own experience regarding to these two firms. However, careful scrutiny reveals that, the author fails to mention several key factors, well established evidence and information to bolster his/her argument. Hence the argument can be considered unsubstantiated.
First of all, the argument is based on the assumption that the Adam’s agents are much more in quantity then Fitch. But greater number of agents does not qualify that all of them are efficient. Perhaps, Fitch agents are more efficient in their work. May be, they are more sincere and determined to their job. Here, quality is the main standard, on the basis of which someone can assess the performance of those firms. Cleary, author fails to determine the activity of those agents to cogent his/her argument.
Furthermore, the author claims that, Adam’s revenue was double then fitch reality on last year. Though he/she mentions some numeric figures of average, the author doesn’t draw any further information about revenue and respective data. Perhaps, Adams realty is more focused on their sales rather than quality. Also they have higher amount of agents and they have to pay them for their work. So what about the expenditure of adam’s reality? There still have some possibilities that the cost of fitch is fewer than adam’s reality. May be, they can assure a myriad amount of profit than their rivals. So still, authors claim is not persuasive.
Again, According to the argument, fitch took more time to sell author’s house than adams. However, here author totally ignores the time difference of these two selling. The fact is that, the author listed the house with fitch ten years ago and again listed another one with adams last year. Clearly, this is an assumption without any solid grounds. May be, the circumstances and business environments was not so friendly in ten years ago like now. There could be others reasons like the average income of peoples were below average at that time. So there could be less likely to sell a house ten years ago than now. Someone cannot deny that if the author listed with his/her house with fitch last year, may be they can sell it faster than adam’s reality.
In conclusion, without having the details insight of the situation and careful examination of possibilities, the conclusion made by author is not justifiable.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 433 350
No. of Characters: 2083 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.562 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.811 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.356 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 97 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 48 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.464 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.322 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.643 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.283 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.283 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.136 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 184, 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.
...s some reasons behind his/her argument. The author mentions about the number of age...
^^^
Line 1, column 457, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...nformation to bolster his/her argument. Hence the argument can be considered unsubsta...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 319, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...sed on their sales rather than quality. Also they have higher amount of agents and t...
^^^^
Line 4, column 708, Rule ID: MAY_BE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'maybe' (=perhaps)?
Suggestion: maybe
...ith his/her house with fitch last year, may be they can sell it faster than adam'...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 35, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'details'' or 'detail's'?
Suggestion: details'; detail's
...ity. In conclusion, without having the details insight of the situation and careful ex...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, regarding, so, still, then, well, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2191.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 426.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14319248826 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54310108192 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57237690188 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49765258216 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 681.3 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => 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: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.721049675 57.8364921388 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 78.25 119.503703932 65% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.2142857143 23.324526521 65% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.17857142857 5.70786347227 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.206974251012 0.218282227539 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0600736307324 0.0743258471296 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0709267856806 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103685510752 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0707582884397 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 14.3799401198 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.94 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.