Company X has just switched to a 4-day workweek, mandating that employees work 10 hours per day from Monday to Thursday instead of 8 hours per day from Monday to Friday. Although the policy is new, Company X claims that the policy will help to increase profits by shutting down offices on Fridays and to boost employee morale by reducing commuting time to and from work each week.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the arguments if the assumptions are unwarranted.
The above argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, the argument does not states what kind of profit it will experience. Does the new policy could boost the employee morale is assumed along with the increase in profit, invalid.
The argument states that the profit will increase but what kind of profit is not mentioned in the argument, does the sales of the product will increase or anything else. Maybe the profit does not have to relate with shutting down offices on Friday, it could be there is no connection between profits and Friday. What if the employees not work with same amount of energy in the extra time than it normally does. If the argument could have mentioned what type of profit does it make then the argument could have been stated as valid.
The argument contain another flaw, which sates that by shutting offices on Friday it will boost employee morale. What kind of morale will it boost is not mentioned, does it include working with more great energy on Monday of next week or it will boost living morale. If the argument could have mention what kind of morale it will boost, it would have been stated as valid.
The arguments finally contain another flaw, the profit it made from the older policy is not mentioned. Maybe the profit will increase in number, suppose for older policy 99 out of 100 products were sold and in new policy 100 out of 200 products were sold, here new policy has greater number but the older policy has greater percentage meaning the older policy was successful. If the argument would have mentioned the exact mathematics then it would have been a valid argument.
Thus the above arguments were not valid for the staed or unstated assumptions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 85, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'state'
Suggestion: state
...asons. Primarily, the argument does not states what kind of profit it will experience....
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 14, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'contains'.
Suggestion: contains
...e been stated as valid. The argument contain another flaw, which sates that by shutt...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 377, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...eaning the older policy was successful. If the argument would have mentioned the e...
^^
Line 7, column 393, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had mentioned'?
Suggestion: had mentioned
... policy was successful. If the argument would have mentioned the exact mathematics then it would hav...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...it would have been a valid argument. Thus the above arguments were not valid for ...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'finally', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'kind of']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.224299065421 0.25644967241 87% => OK
Verbs: 0.202492211838 0.15541462614 130% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0716510903427 0.0836205057962 86% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0529595015576 0.0520304965353 102% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0373831775701 0.0272364105082 137% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.1246105919 0.125424944231 99% => OK
Participles: 0.0560747663551 0.0416121511921 135% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.22156913166 2.79052419416 80% => OK
Infinitives: 0.00311526479751 0.026700313972 12% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.00311526479751 0.001811407834 172% => OK
Determiners: 0.0965732087227 0.113004496875 85% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0498442367601 0.0255425247493 195% => Less modal verbs wanted (like 'must , shall , will , should , would , can , could , may , and might').
WH_determiners: 0.0218068535826 0.0127820249294 171% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1710.0 2731.13054187 63% => OK
No of words: 297.0 446.07635468 67% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.75757575758 6.12365571057 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.57801047555 91% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.329966329966 0.378187486979 87% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.218855218855 0.287650121315 76% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.138047138047 0.208842608468 66% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0572390572391 0.135150697306 42% => More words length more than 8 chars wanted.
Word Length SD: 2.22156913166 2.79052419416 80% => OK
Unique words: 129.0 207.018472906 62% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.434343434343 0.469332199767 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 41.6569812343 52.1807786196 80% => OK
How many sentences: 14.0 20.039408867 70% => OK
Sentence length: 21.2142857143 23.2022227129 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.458176003 57.7814097925 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.142857143 141.986410481 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2142857143 23.2022227129 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.571428571429 0.724660767414 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 43.0998075998 51.9672348444 83% => OK
Elegance: 1.3829787234 1.8405768891 75% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.214795410468 0.441005458295 49% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.15823502794 0.135418324435 117% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.10048927488 0.0829849096947 121% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.662329560563 0.58762219726 113% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.141009380986 0.147661913831 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0989924248754 0.193483328276 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0454064670038 0.0970749176394 47% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.383883989347 0.42659136922 90% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.162251720083 0.0774707102158 209% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135092808739 0.312017818177 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0496189199106 0.0698173142475 71% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
More content wanted. For issue essays, around 450 words, for argument essays, around 400 words.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.