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."
The Vice President of a highly diversified company argues that the new bulding project should be given to Zeta company based on the assumption that the building erected by Zeta company had less maintenance cost last year and it consumes lesser energy as compared to the building erected by Alpha company. This argument is based on several assumptions and it does not provide concrete evidence to convince the readers.
First of all, the author states that despite of the identical floor plans, Zeta company charged 30 percent more than Alpha company and later argued that the building erected by Zeta company has lower maintenance cost and power consumption than that erected by Alpha company. The author implicitly states that Zeta company charged more for construction of building but provided better results than that provided by Alpha company. But it is a baseless assumption as the author assumed that two buildings having same floor plan costs equal. But this is not true, two buildings having same floor plan can have differences in the quality of materials used in construction, the interior and furnishing of building, etc. Hence, the author's assumption that Zeta charged more to provide with more economic facilities is not true.
Furthermore, the author claimed that the building erected by Zeta had low maintenance last year than the building erected by Alpha. But he did not mention the maintenance cost records of earlier years. It is possible that the maintenace of Alpha building was low as compared to Zeta's in the previous years. Hence, the author did not provide sufficient data to support his argument. Moreover, the maintenance costs are dependent on the systems and machines used in the buildings. It is possible that Alpha building consists of machines that run for longer periods and requires more maintenance. Hence, the author needs to specify the type of systems and machines used in both the buildings.
Meanwhile, talking about the energy consumption in both the buildings, the author argued that since the erection of both buildings, the energy consumption in Zeta building is low as compared to Alpha building. This assumption is based on the fact that the machines and systems running in both the buildings are similar. But the author did not provide any evidence to support this fact. It is possible that the Alpha building consists of machines that consume high energy. Hence, this assumption does not provide concrete ground to support it. Alongside, the author states that Zeta has a stable workforce and a little employe turnover. As after several years, it is inappropriate to assume that the workforce of Zeta will be as stable as it was before.
Summing up my ideas mentioned in the preceeding paragraphs, I conclude that the argument given by the author is illogical and it is based on numerous assumptions without solid grounds to support them. Hence, it would be necessary to gather more information about buildings to take a clear decision.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 726, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...furnishing of building, etc. Hence, the authors assumption that Zeta charged more to pr...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, hence, if, moreover, so, while, talking about, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2506.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 491.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10386965377 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70728369723 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65784972414 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.391038696538 0.468620217663 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 776.7 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.2887659146 57.8364921388 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.956521739 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.347826087 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.65217391304 5.70786347227 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.186452543229 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0570340922183 0.0743258471296 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0712137912467 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117896086808 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0702823486087 0.0628817314937 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.93 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 12.3882235529 141% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.