The following appeared in a business magazine.
"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promotoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods"
The author presents the case of Promofoods where the company is claiming that their canned food does not contain the chemicals due to which the customers are complaining about dizziness and nausea based on the fact that the contents in the cans tested negative for 5 out the 8 chemicals that their chemists thought causes nausea. This conclusion of the author is extremely flawed as it does not contain the evidence necessary to support his conclusion.
The author tries to support his claim that the dizziness and nausea is not caused by the canned tuna of Promofoods by stating that 8 million cans were requested to be returned for testing of the chemicals. This although is a statistical data, it does not provide enough information as to conclude that a sample set of 8 million cans for testing was large enough or not. It completely depends on how many cans the company produces daily or monthly and if only particular batch of the tuna cans caused the complaints. Also, it is not known if the cans acquired by the company were from the same area where the complaints came from and hence it cannot be deduced that these were the cans that gave rise to the complaints.
Secondly, the author states that the chemists at Promofoods tested for the 8 commonly known chemicals that caused nausea and diziness. There is a high possibility that the dizziness and nausea is caused because of other chemicals that are present in the can of tuna but were not checked by the chemists.
The author also states that the chemists at Promofoods concluded that the chemicals in the tuna do not pose a health risk because the sample tested negative for 5 out of 8 chemicals that they knew commonly caused dizziness and nausea. However, it is quite plausible that the contents of the tuna can reacted with the remaining 3 chemicals and these 3 are the ones that actually pose a threat and are responsible for the complaints.
Hence the authors conclusion is based on fallacious and erronious assumptions. There is no concrete evidence that is present that the author provides that bolsters his claim that the canned tuna of Promofoods is not causing that nausea and dizziness.
- The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner Over the past two years the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically Many Central Pl 60
- Some people believe that in order to be effective political leaders must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise Others believe that the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently c 62
- The following appeared in a business magazine As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year Promotoods concluded that the cans did not after all c 59
- In any field of endeavor it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement 50
- The following appeared in a letter from a homeowner to a friend Of the two leading real estate firms in our town Adams Realty and Fitch Realty Adams Realty is clearly superior Adams has 40 real estate agents in contrast Fitch has 25 many of whom work only 73
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 12 15
No. of Words: 375 350
No. of Characters: 1768 1500
No. of Different Words: 148 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.401 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.715 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.532 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 67 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.189 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.422 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.682 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.128 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 459, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ny produces daily or monthly and if only particular batch of the tuna cans caused...
^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... are responsible for the complaints. Hence the authors conclusion is based on fall...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 11, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nsible for the complaints. Hence the authors conclusion is based on fallacious and e...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 13.6137724551 184% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 16.3942115768 18% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1808.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 372.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.86021505376 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39173103935 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82822272761 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.405913978495 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 547.2 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => 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: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 60.2803634878 57.8364921388 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.666666667 119.503703932 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.0 23.324526521 133% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.66666666667 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.297132191848 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.127699415679 0.0743258471296 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0884058324336 0.0701772020484 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177819602712 0.128457276422 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0740495334673 0.0628817314937 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 14.3799401198 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.47 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.5 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 12.3882235529 141% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.9071856287 151% => 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.