The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a large, highly diversified company.
"Ten years ago our company had two new office buildings constructed as regional headquarters for two different regions. The buildings were erected by two different construction companies—Alpha and Zeta. Even though the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build, and its expenses for maintenance last year were twice those of the building constructed by Alpha. Furthermore, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been higher than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Such data, plus the fact that Alpha has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, indicate that we should use Alpha rather than Zeta for our contemplated new building project."
The author states here that for contemplated new building project they should use building Alpha over Zeta. The argument is fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To justify this, author reasons that Zeta buildings have higher maintenance and higher energy consumption over Alpha building. However, careful scrutiny of evidence reveals that it provide little credible support for the author's justification. Hence, this argument is considered incomplete or unsubstantiated.
First of all, author readily assumes that two building has identical floor plan so the cost of making should be equal. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. For example, it could happened that both building have different type of design and building structure. And it could also happen that both the buildings are in different region for that in construction of both the building there can different cost of men, material and power. Hence, the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly stated with clear evidence about construction of buildings.
Moreover, author states here that maintenance cost of building and energy consumption of building is both higher than the other one. This again is a weak and unsupported claim and it do not clearly clarifies the correlation between the maintenance and energy consumption should be equal for same floor area. To illustrate it further, there can be possible that in both different region there are different energy rate and it could also possible that there are different maintenance required according to its uses. Hence, if argument would have given the before mentioned doubts answers, it would have been much more convincing to reader.
Finally, it states that Alpha has stable workforce and little employee turnover it should use the alpha building. However, careful scrutiny of evidence reveals that it provide little support for author's conclusion on several key aspects, and raises skeptical questions. For example, How it can be more suitable for work because of stable workforce; and what are the details of the work? and if it could accommodate required staff for new building project. Without convincing answer to these questions, the argument is incomplete.
In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, author must provide clear concrete evidence , perhaps by means of detailed analysis of comparison between two buildings. To evaluate it further author must give more clear information about the contemplated work and their requirements.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 429, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...provide little credible support for the authors justification. Hence, this argument is ...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 203, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'happen'
Suggestion: happen
...uch solid ground. For example, it could happened that both building have different type ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 185, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'does'?
Suggestion: does
... is a weak and unsupported claim and it do not clearly clarifies the correlation b...
^^
Line 3, column 483, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ble that there are different maintenance required according to its uses. Hence, i...
^^
Line 3, column 536, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had given'?
Suggestion: had given
...cording to its uses. Hence, if argument would have given the before mentioned doubts answers, it...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 388, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: And
...; and what are the details of the work? and if it could accommodate required staff ...
^^^
Line 5, column 125, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...hor must provide clear concrete evidence , perhaps by means of detailed analysis o...
^^
Line 5, column 226, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'authors'?
Suggestion: authors
...n two buildings. To evaluate it further author must give more clear information about ...
^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'finally', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'so', 'for example', 'in conclusion', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.249443207127 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.135857461024 0.15541462614 87% => OK
Adjectives: 0.115812917595 0.0836205057962 138% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0512249443207 0.0520304965353 98% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0445434298441 0.0272364105082 164% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.124721603563 0.125424944231 99% => OK
Participles: 0.0244988864143 0.0416121511921 59% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.77633553005 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0178173719376 0.026700313972 67% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0734966592428 0.113004496875 65% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0378619153675 0.0255425247493 148% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00890868596882 0.0127820249294 70% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2603.0 2731.13054187 95% => OK
No of words: 408.0 446.07635468 91% => OK
Chars per words: 6.37990196078 6.12365571057 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49433085973 4.57801047555 98% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.426470588235 0.378187486979 113% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.325980392157 0.287650121315 113% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.245098039216 0.208842608468 117% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.134803921569 0.135150697306 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77633553005 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 207.018472906 91% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.460784313725 0.469332199767 98% => OK
Word variations: 49.5816691017 52.1807786196 95% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 18.5454545455 23.2022227129 80% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.7738212291 57.7814097925 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.318181818 141.986410481 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5454545455 23.2022227129 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.5 0.724660767414 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 3.58251231527 223% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 51.1434937611 51.9672348444 98% => OK
Elegance: 1.72115384615 1.8405768891 94% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.163239091869 0.441005458295 37% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.082700373238 0.135418324435 61% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0932589494322 0.0829849096947 112% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.478568136023 0.58762219726 81% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.134025182018 0.147661913831 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0653994388887 0.193483328276 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0424020268284 0.0970749176394 44% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.380000290285 0.42659136922 89% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0841504410345 0.0774707102158 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120327905913 0.312017818177 39% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0328796652555 0.0698173142475 47% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 11.0 6.46551724138 170% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 14.657635468 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
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.