The author puts forth the argument that since the overall cost of construction and maintenance of Aleph constructed dormitories was less than that constructed by the Gimmel Builders for five years, the local university should hire Aleph Construction. However on deeper scrutiny, the argument turns out to be based on various big leaps of logic like - assuming that the buildings are exactly identical in the construction material, or that 5 years is suffiecient to calculate the overall cost, and the maintenance cost would not vary in the future. These assumptions must be warranted inorder to make the argument sound and strong.
Firstly, the author assumes that the two buildings are nearly identical means that the construction material employed in both of them were of same quality. It is quite possible that Aleph Construction group might have employed low quality and cheap material to lower the cost. Furthermore, the accessories fitted in the dormatories like fan, bulbs, electric heaters, refrigirators etc can be of very different qualities and hence donot make the comparision of the two dormatories justified as these factors are variable. If the Aleph dormatories have these appliances of lower range, then the assumption that the Aleph Construction is cheaper for identical buildings would fall down.
Also, by saying that overall cost of the Aleph constucted dormatories is lower to Gimmel constructed dormatories, author has take an unwarranted assumption that the life of the dormatories is for 5 years only. Is it not possible that the dormatories life span is of 20 to 50 years? In this case the overall cost would vary from the one that author calculates and it is plausible that overall cost of the Gimmel dormitory over the entire lifespan turns out to be lower than Aleph one. Therefore, the author must put forth the cost according to expected life of both the dormatories to evaluate their overall cost and not assume it to be 5 years to truly compare the two contractors.
Another loophole in the argument is posited by the assumption of stagnant maintenance cost. Since the construction cost for Aleph dormatories was less, there are chances that they are made up of lower quality raw materials and hence, their breakdown and maintenance cost would escalate with time. In this case, with the increasing time the maintenance rate of Aleph dormatories would rise at a much higher rate than the rise in maintenance prices of Gimmel buildings. Therefore, the author must warran the invariability of the maintenance costs to bolster his argument and negate the possibility discussed that could negatively affect the author’s conclusion.
To conclude, the author must justify these assumptions in order to make a solid case of comparision of the two construction consultancies. The author should also produce an unbiased and representative survey of the experience of the people living in those dormatories, so that we can account for the value of satisfaction of the people living while comparing the cost. In the absence of clarification of the above mentioned assumptions and experience survey, the judgment of the argument would have enormous logical fallacies and hence, would lead to erroneous decision.
- If two applicants for a job are otherwise equally qualified the job should go to the applicant with more experience Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the posi 50
- The city council of Town X has proposed reducing the city s electric expenses by switching all the lights in public buildings from incandescent bulbs to light emitting diodes LEDs The switch would be made gradually as the old incandescent bulbs burn ou
- Schools should cut funding for extracurricular activities such as sports and the arts when school buildingsare in need of repair 50
- Five years ago the local university built two new dormitories through different contractors Aleph Construction and Gimmel Builders The buildings were nearly identical though it cost Gimmel Builders approximately 20 percent more to construct their dorm 73
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 12 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 521 350
No. of Characters: 2666 1500
No. of Different Words: 224 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.778 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.117 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.914 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 174 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 141 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 83 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.944 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.536 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.368 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.589 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.136 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 126, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'taken'.
Suggestion: taken
...mel constructed dormatories, author has take an unwarranted assumption that the life...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, so, then, therefore, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 55.5748502994 130% => OK
Nominalization: 30.0 16.3942115768 183% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2724.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 521.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22840690979 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77759609229 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9735750419 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.445297504798 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 849.6 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 59.2820210915 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.333333333 119.503703932 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.9444444444 23.324526521 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 5.70786347227 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.251879645001 0.218282227539 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0872718348574 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0754960966399 0.0701772020484 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149041180252 0.128457276422 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0764737233791 0.0628817314937 122% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 14.3799401198 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.3550499002 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.65 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.9071856287 151% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.