The following appeared in a report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that manufactures parts for heavy machinery.
“The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delays, in turn, are due in large part to poor planning in purchasing metals. Consider further that the manager of the department that handles purchasing of raw materials has an excellent background in general business, psychology, and sociology, but knows little about the properties of metals. The company should, therefore, move the purchasing manager to the sales department and bring in a scientist from the research division to be manager of the purchasing department.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
Based upon the coincidence of falling revenues with delays in manufacturing, the report suggests that the present purchasing manager be moved to sales department and a research division scientist to be the manager of purchasing metals division. The report supports this conclusion based on two-fold reasoning. First, these delays in purchasing metals is due to poor planning by the department. Second, the manager of the department, though an expert in areas like general business, psychology and sociology, lacks knowledge about the properties of the metals. However, the reasoning presented here is problematic in some critical aspects.
The coincidence between the falling revenues and delays in manufacturing lacks a causal relationship. The mere fact that delays in manufacturing and falling revenues coincide is not sufficient to deduce that delays in manufacturing is causing a fall in revenues. Without compelling evidence for the above, the report’s recommendations are not considerable.
Further, the manager’s poor knowledge about the properties of metals is presented as a reason for poor planning in purchasing these metals by the department. No evidence is given to support this crucial reasoning. Since purchasing a metal is more of a logistical function, an in-depth knowledge about the properties of these metals may not be useful. Thus, bringing in scientist as a manager, who perhaps lacks knowledge about logistics and business functions, may cause more harm than good.
In conclusion, the argument presented here is weak. To strengthen the conclusion, evidence to establish a causal relationship between manufacturing delays and falling revenues should be provided. The report must also rule out other factors that might contribute in falling revenues. Also, compelling evidence should be given to prove that knowledge about metal properties is crucial for purchasing metals.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
more content waned.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 286 350
No. of Characters: 1576 1500
No. of Different Words: 128 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.112 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.51 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.028 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 131 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.875 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.745 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.346 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.541 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.065 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, may, second, so, then, thus, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 28.8173652695 35% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1624.0 2260.96107784 72% => OK
No of words: 286.0 441.139720559 65% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.67832167832 5.12650576532 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.56307096286 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.18564282544 2.78398813304 114% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 204.123752495 66% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.472027972028 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 500.4 705.55239521 71% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => 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: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.4633702855 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.5 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.875 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.3125 5.70786347227 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.235146257079 0.218282227539 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0845030594803 0.0743258471296 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0776278875099 0.0701772020484 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169158900002 0.128457276422 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101254871309 0.0628817314937 161% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.37 12.5979740519 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.