"The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by McAdam Road Builders, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous potholes. In another part of the state, a section of Route 66, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago, is still in good condition. Appian Roadways has recently purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery, and it has hired a new quality-control manager. Because of its superior work and commitment to quality, we should contract with Appian Roadways rather than McAdam Road Builders to construct the access roads for all our new shopping malls
According to the author the contract of building of all the new shopping malls should be given to Appian Roadways since the section of Route 101 paved two years ago by McAdam Road builders is now badly cracked and is full of dangerous potholes and on contrary to this a section of Route 66, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago is in a very manageable condition. Along with their everlasting work the author mentions that Appian Roadways has recently purchases state-of-art paving machinery and it has hired a new quality-control manager.Finally the author from all the mentioned inidents concludes that Appian Roadways has superior work and commitment to quality. The argument is plagued with logical flaws that fails to convience the reader that the conclusion is justified.
Firstly the author mentions that the work of Appian Roadways is of better quality than McAdam Road Builders since their work after four year was in good condition than two year work of McAdam Road Builders. A careful scrutiny of the given argument will reveal numerous fallacies that make the given point non appealing, Author compares two different roads built at two differnt locations and for different times. The comparison of Section 101 and Section 66 is not legitimate since they are built at different location, It is possible that the usuage of road is different and hence the damage produced over the time has been different, the author has not mentioned anything about this fact. For instance Section Route 66 is a residential road or Section Route 101 is a highway or a very busy road and therefore no heavy vechial travel through 66 and section 101 faces a lot damage due to heavy load. In that case it is very unfair to compare the damage produced in the two roads.
Secondly, another point that the author as mentioned that Appian Roadways has recently purchsed state-of-the-art paving machinery and it has hired a new control manager. This point is providing no support that Appian Roadways should be selected for giving the contract of building of shopping malls, there can be some companies already having all the needed machines to build a shopping malls.
A shopping mall along with optimum use of space and needs to be attractive so that more people are drawn towards it. Whenever a contract is given to a company for building a shoppnig mall, the histroy of the work done by the company should be looked into. The author has not mentioned anything about the past record of both the companies building shopping mall. The only thing author has mentioned is there history of building of roads which is no parameter of comparsion. Also considering the fact that a company building roads must not be intrested in building shopping malls, therefore author must look for compaines which build shopping malls have a record of building it before, so that there work can be adjudged and proper descions can be made.
Hence, all the points that author has mentioned doesn't support his conclusion and thus must be recaluclated and then only final resulted should be made.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 552, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Finally
...has hired a new quality-control manager.Finally the author from all the mentioned inide...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 552, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...has hired a new quality-control manager.Finally the author from all the mentioned inide...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 320, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...that make the given point non appealing, Author compares two different roads buil...
^^
Line 7, column 474, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...ds which is no parameter of comparsion. Also considering the fact that a company bui...
^^^^
Line 9, column 49, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ll the points that author has mentioned doesnt support his conclusion and thus must be...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, hence, if, look, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2565.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 520.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93269230769 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77530192783 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58769205044 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.423076923077 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 768.6 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 32.0 22.8473053892 140% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 81.4032209129 57.8364921388 141% => OK
Chars per sentence: 160.3125 119.503703932 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.5 23.324526521 139% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5625 5.70786347227 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.282053706856 0.218282227539 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0916295221472 0.0743258471296 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.138671651133 0.0701772020484 198% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154427118558 0.128457276422 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.156269175437 0.0628817314937 249% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.0 14.3799401198 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.46 48.3550499002 98% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.91 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.05 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 98.500998004 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 28.0 12.3882235529 226% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 14.8 11.1389221557 133% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.