Surprisingly, in the recent years, real estate firms have grown very firmly and they are a topic of major interest. The author of this letter tries to persuade his friend to use Adams Realty to sell his house based on several premises and thereby concludes that Adam is better than Fitch. Few people may assert that number of agents for Adams Realty is almost twice as high as Fitch Realty. There are even those who dispute that the average turnover of Adams is higher than Fitch and those who affirm it. Some people also ineffectively argue that Fitch was slow ten years back, but Adams is fast in recent years. Although the author's claim may well have merit, he has presented a poorly reasons argument that is built upon several questionable premises that does not hold up under high level of scrutiny. Based solely on the evidences at hand the author's argument cannot be supported.
Firstly, the primary concern with author's reasoning is his baseless assumptions. The author claims that number of real estate agents working for Adams are higher than that for Fitch. But this statement does not provide any details regarding the skilfulness of the employees working in the firms. There lies a possibility that Fitch Realty's employees may be more capable or competent than that of Adams Realty. The author undermines his argument by failing to expand the links between quantity and quality of the agents that he presumes to exist.
In addition to relying on unfound hypotheses, the author camouflage his lack of irrefutable evidences by equivocating throughout the argument. The author stated that ten years back Fitch Realty took four months to sell one of his houses and last year Adams realty took only a month to sell his another house. This is an ambiguous statement because the author is incapable of providing the details regarding the rate at which Adams realty sold houses ten years ago and the rate at which Fitch Realty sold houses a year back. There is also lack of elucidation regarding the qualities of the two houses and the demand rate at those instances. The use of ambiguity guarantees that scope and validity of the argument is obscure.
Furthermore, the author derives several inferences that remain debatable at the best. The author points out that the average sales rate of Adams Realty is higher than Fitch Realty last year. But the author fails to take into consideration that might have resulted in these circumstances that might have not been propitious to Fitch Realty. If the author is able to provide statistical data of all the years that Adams Realty has beaten Fetch Realty's average sales rate all the years then the argument can be warranted. The author's premise over which the argument rests proves to be devoid of legitimate evidentiary support.
On the positive side, notwithstanding the dubious information and logical fallacies of the author's argument, his claim may well have merits. The author's issue suffers the lack of evidentiary support and statistical data. Also if the author wants to support his cause, the entire argument must be restructured with legitimate proofs and statistical data analyses of the complete history of both the companies by conducting extensive research and expanding on several inconsistencies. If the author fails to provide evidences then his viewpoint will largely remain negated.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 679, Rule ID: DT_JJ_NO_NOUN[2]
Message: Probably a noun is missing in this part of the sentence.
...m may well have merit, he has presented a poorly reasons argument that is built upon sev...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 848, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...sed solely on the evidences at hand the authors argument cannot be supported. Firstl...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 341, 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.
...ve not been propitious to Fitch Realty. If the author is able to provide statistic...
^^
Line 9, column 92, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nformation and logical fallacies of the authors argument, his claim may well have merit...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 222, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...identiary support and statistical data. Also if the author wants to support his caus...
^^^^
Line 9, column 484, 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.
...d expanding on several inconsistencies. If the author fails to provide evidences t...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, if, may, regarding, so, then, well, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2810.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 557.0 441.139720559 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04488330341 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85807034144 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57973548047 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 204.123752495 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.45960502693 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 880.2 705.55239521 125% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => 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: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.8598903623 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.076923077 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4230769231 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.34615384615 5.70786347227 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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 : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228942741381 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0705096001319 0.0743258471296 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0841786513764 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14495784775 0.128457276422 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0818330345398 0.0628817314937 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: 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.