The following appeared in an internal memo circulated amongst the partners of a small design firm:
“We, the four partners of Max Design, have made the company what it is. When we are hired by a client, it is our taste and
style that the client is paying for. In the last two years we have grown significantly and now have project managers
handling many of our recent contracts. In my opinion, the work put forth by the teams led by the product managers is not
as good as the work put forth when it was just the four of us. At other design firms of a similar size, the principals remain
personally involved in all projects. Therefore, from now on, all decisions for all projects, no matter how minute, should be
signed off by one of us.”
The arguments on which the author arrives at the conclusion is unsubstantial and the evidence presented is not strong enough to justify the conclusion. Important information has been ignored and faulty line of reasoning is employed which renders the conclusion unsound.
Firstly, the author implies that the growth of the company was only through the effort of the four partners. However, can this opinion be unbiased and truly believed? It is only logical that with the growth of a company, more hands are required to help out especially since the growth is significant. Can the effort put in by the employees be categorized as invaluable? Hence, the premise on which the recommendation is based evokes a number of questions that require a solid answer.
Secondly, the conclusion rests on the argument that the work put forth by the teams are not up to the mark set by the four partners. Again, the possibility that the opinion is biased is existant. Even if we assume that the opinion is unbiased, it arises doubts regarding the method by which the work has been measured. Has the work of teams drastically affected the prestige of the company? It is possible that the work lacked quality because the employees were not familiar with it and would improve themselves in the coming projects. Since the time frame in which the work has been evaluated is small, it is unsafe to reject these possibilities entirely.
Thirdly, the author puts forward the example of other similar sized companies where in the principals involve themselves in all projects. However, similar sized companies may not have the same reputation, quality of work or number of projects. Also, the extent of involvement of the principals is not explicitly specified. It is possible that they may just supervise the last stages of the project and remain absent in the initial developments. Hence, arriving at the conclusion that the four partners must involve themselves in each and every step of the project is unnecessary.
To sum, the author reaches upon the suggestion after considering little information and provides insufficient facts to strengthen the arguments. Hence, the situation needs further analysis before arriving at a sound and logical conclusion.
- The following appeared in a report to the board of a company that produces men’s sporting apparel:“While national television advertising is increasingly expensive, it would cost roughly the same amount to reach the samenumber of people by buying print 66
- The following was a memorandum by the campaign manger for a state senate candidate:“Contributers to nearly every major blog in the state, both democratic and republican, agree that a proposal to increasetolls on the major highways going through our stat 83
- An ailing patient should have easy access to his or her doctor's record of treating similarly afflicted patients. Through gaining such access, the ailing patient may better determine whether the doctor is competent to treat that medical condition. 50
- Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within law, is to make as muc 58
- The following appeared in an email written by the head of market research division to the president of a major candy company:“In the last four years the gross sales in the candy market have remained static, but ice cream, another confectionaryproduct, h 70
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'third', 'thirdly']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.214463840399 0.25644967241 84% => OK
Verbs: 0.179551122195 0.15541462614 116% => OK
Adjectives: 0.074812967581 0.0836205057962 89% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0573566084788 0.0520304965353 110% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0274314214464 0.0272364105082 101% => OK
Prepositions: 0.127182044888 0.125424944231 101% => OK
Participles: 0.0523690773067 0.0416121511921 126% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.83501380836 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0149625935162 0.026700313972 56% => OK
Particles: 0.00249376558603 0.001811407834 138% => OK
Determiners: 0.152119700748 0.113004496875 135% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0149625935162 0.0255425247493 59% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0174563591022 0.0127820249294 137% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2245.0 2731.13054187 82% => OK
No of words: 366.0 446.07635468 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.13387978142 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37391431897 4.57801047555 96% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.393442622951 0.378187486979 104% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.29781420765 0.287650121315 104% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.215846994536 0.208842608468 103% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.155737704918 0.135150697306 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83501380836 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 207.018472906 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.505464480874 0.469332199767 108% => OK
Word variations: 53.9633728763 52.1807786196 103% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 18.3 23.2022227129 79% => OK
Sentence length SD: 28.666138561 57.7814097925 50% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.25 141.986410481 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3 23.2022227129 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.7 0.724660767414 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 48.081420765 51.9672348444 93% => OK
Elegance: 1.49056603774 1.8405768891 81% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.550545415304 0.441005458295 125% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.120887185985 0.135418324435 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0750892779179 0.0829849096947 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.644628883375 0.58762219726 110% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.135124009225 0.147661913831 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.268155109596 0.193483328276 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103764257458 0.0970749176394 107% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.505305829863 0.42659136922 118% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.132168842202 0.0774707102158 171% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.387745703615 0.312017818177 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.120478855232 0.0698173142475 173% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.