In a laboratory study of two different industrial cleansers, CleanAll was found to remove 40% more dirt and kill 30% more bacteria than the next best cleanser. Furthermore, a study showed that employees working at buildings cleaned with cleanAll used far fewer sick leaves than employees working in the buildings cleaned with the other cleaners. Therefore, to prevent employee illness, all companies should use CleanAll as their industrial cleaners.
The author asserts that CleanAll is the best cleanser then the next best cleanser because it removes 40-percent more dirt and kills 30-percent more bacteria. Moreover, the employees worked at buildings cleaned with CleanAll used to far fewer sick leave. However, the proposal contains some flaws and will not be accepted if it fails to answer some critical assumption. Moreover, the conclusion dismisses some assumption which is important to draw an accurate conclusion.
Firstly, the author claims that the CleanAll is removed 40% more dirt and kill 30% more bacteria. This statement is quite ambiguous because the author states that the study was done in a laboratory. But, there is no proper evidence and also no proper data that proved that CleanAll is a better cleanser. Moreover, it is also possible that the experimental result is biased and it may be used more high poisonous chemical for which kill more bacteria that are not beneficial for humans health. It is possible that it does not harmful instantly but slows poison like a cigarette.
The second issue is the employees working in a building clean with CleanAll takes less sick leave than other employees. It is possible that the boss of the employees is too strict and not allowed sickness leave or employees may be attained in the office to avoid salary cut. Moreover, the office building cleans with only water which is hygienic than the CleanAll. If all this assumption is found true then the argument of the author falls apart.
The third problematic issue is that the author did not state how many building the study was done. There is no survey report of the building. Thus, it is possible that the environment of the building is already better and that's why the employees used to far fewer sick.
While the overall hypothesis is interesting but with investigating various fact it can be concluded that, the author needs to propound more information to validate the statement. The result of the statement can only be accepted if the referred week assupmtion is removed and questined answered accurately.
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 18 15
No. of Words: 347 350
No. of Characters: 1697 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.316 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.89 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.536 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 122 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.278 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.839 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.889 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.56 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.07 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 579, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ntly but slows poison like a cigarette. The second issue is the employees workin...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 366, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...er which is hygienic than the CleanAll. If all this assumption is found true then ...
^^
Line 7, column 223, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...t of the building is already better and thats why the employees used to far fewer sic...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, then, third, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 55.5748502994 38% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1741.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 347.0 441.139720559 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01729106628 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60995203262 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.507204610951 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 526.5 705.55239521 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
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: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.377156611 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.7222222222 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2777777778 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05555555556 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.365636403131 0.218282227539 168% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102761025003 0.0743258471296 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108900533899 0.0701772020484 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.181916639783 0.128457276422 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0958759239772 0.0628817314937 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.