"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating résumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The author made a conclusion based on several pieces of rough evidence. None of them make the argument convincing, instead, they have different problems each by each. To evaluate the argument more clearly and precisely, the author needs to provide the data in the same period, show the evidence’s fit to the assumption directly and necessarily, and make irrefutable connections between evidence and the conclusion. Otherwise, the evidence is nothing but revealing the weakness of the argument.
While XYZ’s company is using personnel firm to offer employees’ opportunity to find a job after being fired, the comparison between the two firms they have been used is unconvincing. One data of Delany and another one of Walsh's are two materials in different time which attribute to the misunderstanding that there is nothing change in 8 years, but it is impossible. To make the argument reasonable, the author should provide the premise that in 8 years, human resource marketing and economy stay the same.
Although the Delany’s staff is bigger and the branch office is more, it is nothing can guarantee that the work in there are more efficient than Walsh and therefore it is superior to Walsh. Many companies are small but very famous, usually, only have a one core team but very efficient such as Pix. Oppositely, the bigger company often takes more time and need more revenue to maintain its huge and clumsy company. Thus, the author needs to offer a significant connection between the evidence that the bigger company is undoubtedly more effective in working.
Also, the author mixed the statistic information improperly. Firstly, only half of the unemployed staff use Walsh found a job may be because those jobs needs were rare in the market. If the average job found chance is 20%, then, in fact, the Walsh did a very great help. Similarly, the period of finding a job does not mean that the Delany is better than the Walsh if the types of jobs were different. Therefore, the author should inform that the job-hunting in these two companies are the same.
All in all, the evidence in the argument is lacking supported assumptions. The author should mention that the time, the type of jobs, and the detailed conditions related to these two companies. Otherwise, the whole conclusion is unreasonable and the argument is falling apart when considering it.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 393 350
No. of Characters: 1913 1500
No. of Different Words: 195 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.452 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.868 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.631 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 129 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.684 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.007 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.579 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.556 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.073 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...evealing the weakness of the argument. While XYZ's company is using person...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e marketing and economy stay the same. Although the Delany's staff is bigg...
^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...undoubtedly more effective in working. Also, the author mixed the statistic inf...
^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g in these two companies are the same. All in all, the evidence in the argument...
^^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... is falling apart when considering it.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, may, similarly, so, then, therefore, thus, while, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1999.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 393.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08651399491 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45244063426 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8335958293 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521628498728 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 635.4 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.9298780296 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.210526316 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6842105263 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.10526315789 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0812296427122 0.218282227539 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0224059839987 0.0743258471296 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0347512828979 0.0701772020484 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0450890631706 0.128457276422 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0402956493946 0.0628817314937 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.