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 regions. The buildings were erected by different construction companies—Alpha and Zeta. Although the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build. However, that building's expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha's. In addition, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. Given these data, plus the fact that Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, we recommend using Zeta rather than Alpha for our new building project, even though Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
A vice president of a company recommends from a memo that the company have to work with Zeta construction company in launching new building project. His assertion is based on several claims that when the company ordered two construction company-Alpha and Zeta- on two identical building projects respectively, Zeta company's saving in maintenance cost was better than Alpha and Zeta has more stable employment condition. However, his reasons for supporting Zeta company have to be answered for several fallacies they involve.
First, the president mainly argues that the total saving cost for maintenance is much more beneficial in Zeta's building in spite of investing 30% of more cost in construction. However, this cannot be support the author's argument when the money for exceeding construction fee-30%- is far extraorbitant than the sum of annual savings from maintenance cost and electricity. Only if the saving cost is analyzed to exceed the initial investment of construction, his assertion can be warranted.
Second, he specifies the identical characteristics of two buildings built by Alpha and Zeta but fails to consider the environment around the buildings which might lead to different amount of money spent on maintenance or electricity. For instance, Alpha's building is located in humid and hot climate zone while the Zeta's building is in temperate climate zone, money spent on electricity cannot be compared in same condition. Without doubt, Alpha's building have to run huge amount of energy in order to cool down the temperature using air conditioner and hire more engineers for maintenance of the building. Therefore, the president have to be aware of discrete condition of two buildings rather ascribing the cost for maintenance or energy to the building company.
Third, the president adds another reason for supporting Zeta for new building describing the stable working condition of employees. He claims that workforce in Zeta shows little employee turnover. It is unclear why the president prefers to support little turnover rate since it cannot deliver any information regarding the company itself. Presumably, moral responsibility for employees, well-trained employees with seasoned knowledge can be reasons behind his claim. However, when Alpha hires more knowledgable and more skilled employees, Alpha can be more competitive in construction field in spite of high turnover rate. Therefore, preferring Zeta in terms of little turnover and deciding the company as stable is flawed.
In conclusion, the president's assertion that Zeta is preferrable than Alpha company for bidding in new building construction cannot be logically cogent. He should describe more information regarding his assertion to fully persuade other people involved in bidding procedure.
Comments
I'm not sure of which content
I'm not sure of which content is shown to be duplicated.
I would be appreciated if you can illustrate the above result and score.
Thank you!
The above result and score
The above result and score are based on language not arguments. They are the reference for the final score.
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: However, this cannot be support the author's argument when the money for exceeding construction fee-30- is far extraorbitant than the sum of annual savings from maintenance cost and electricity.
Error: extraorbitant Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: However, when Alpha hires more knowledgable and more skilled employees, Alpha can be more competitive in construction field in spite of high turnover rate.
Error: knowledgable Suggestion: knowledgeable
Sentence: In conclusion, the president's assertion that Zeta is preferrable than Alpha company for bidding in new building construction cannot be logically cogent.
Error: preferrable Suggestion: No alternate word
----------------
argument 1 -- not OK. it is Zeta not Alpha who used more money.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK but more: Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs
----------------
Let's analyze the structure of the statement and argue accordingly:
condition 1:
Although the two buildings had identical floor plans, the building constructed by Zeta cost 30 percent more to build. However, that building's expenses for maintenance last year were only half those of Alpha's. //1. maybe 30% is a big money 2. it is for last year only, how are other years'?
condition 2:
In addition, the energy consumption of the Zeta building has been lower than that of the Alpha building every year since its construction. //your argument 2
conclusion:
Given these data, plus the fact that Zeta has a stable workforce with little employee turnover, we recommend using Zeta rather than Alpha for our new building project, even though Alpha's bid promises lower construction costs. //your argument 3 but more
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 426 350
No. of Characters: 2320 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.543 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.446 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.954 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 185 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 148 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 111 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 82 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.565 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.722 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.359 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.589 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.145 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 213, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...on. However, this cannot be support the authors argument when the money for exceeding c...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'presidents'' or 'president's'?
Suggestion: presidents'; president's
...table is flawed. In conclusion, the presidents assertion that Zeta is preferrable than...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'regarding', 'second', 'so', 'therefore', 'third', 'well', 'while', 'for instance', 'in conclusion', 'in spite of']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.316239316239 0.25644967241 123% => OK
Verbs: 0.149572649573 0.15541462614 96% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0918803418803 0.0836205057962 110% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0470085470085 0.0520304965353 90% => OK
Pronouns: 0.025641025641 0.0272364105082 94% => OK
Prepositions: 0.136752136752 0.125424944231 109% => OK
Participles: 0.0534188034188 0.0416121511921 128% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.0242796291 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0235042735043 0.026700313972 88% => OK
Particles: 0.00213675213675 0.001811407834 118% => OK
Determiners: 0.0641025641026 0.113004496875 57% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0192307692308 0.0255425247493 75% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0128205128205 0.0127820249294 100% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2794.0 2731.13054187 102% => OK
No of words: 426.0 446.07635468 95% => OK
Chars per words: 6.55868544601 6.12365571057 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54310108192 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.43896713615 0.378187486979 116% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.354460093897 0.287650121315 123% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.274647887324 0.208842608468 132% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.197183098592 0.135150697306 146% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0242796291 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 207.018472906 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485915492958 0.469332199767 104% => OK
Word variations: 53.7604791542 52.1807786196 103% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 23.6666666667 23.2022227129 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.808807753 57.7814097925 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 155.222222222 141.986410481 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6666666667 23.2022227129 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.777777777778 0.724660767414 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 59.1126760563 51.9672348444 114% => OK
Elegance: 2.27884615385 1.8405768891 124% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.281322588017 0.441005458295 64% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.140182609609 0.135418324435 104% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0751146772068 0.0829849096947 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.571697116139 0.58762219726 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.133684527519 0.147661913831 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.120660433489 0.193483328276 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0740741528573 0.0970749176394 76% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.34640257716 0.42659136922 81% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0780345345026 0.0774707102158 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.182780400889 0.312017818177 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0468248180582 0.0698173142475 67% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => 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: 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.