Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our fast-food warehouse in Palm City, but last month we discovered that over $20,000 worth of food there had been destroyed by pest damage. Meanwhile, the Buzzoff Pest Control Company, which we have used for many years, continued to service our warehouse in Wintervale, and last month only $10,000 worth of the food stored there had been destroyed by pest damage. Even though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerably lower, our best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services.
In this memo, the author argues that his food distribution company should return to Buzzoff Pest Control Companey for all pest control services to save money. He asserts that Buzzoff showed lower pest damage than Fly-Away Pest Control Company. Although this argument may seem convincing at first, the lack of solid evidence leads me to question the validity of the argument.
First, the author needs to provide solid evidence on the pest damage of Fly-Away Pest Control Company in last month. He mentioned that it is discovered that over $20,000 worth of food was damaged by pest last month. However, it is plausible that there was unpredictable accident in last month. The guard of the warehouse might not check the door, so many insects would enter the food warehouse. The results of last month could be an aberrant case. Moreover, it is likely that over $20,000 worth of food is not significant compared to the amount of total worth of stored food. If Fly-Away managed substantial amount of food, $20,000 worth of food would be negligible.
Second, the author needs to supplement the argument with the concrete evidence on the pest damage of Wintervale warehouse managed by Buzzoff Pest Control Company. He compared two pest control companies, Fly-Away and Buzzoff, and Buzzoff showed food damage of $10,000. However, it is possible that the lower pest damage may not because of good management of Buzzoff, but because of weather in Wintervale. The weather in Wintervale may be too adverse, so insects are hard to be active. Also, the pest damage while one month might not represent the damage during one year. the pest damage can be varied according to seasonal change, and the results of pest damage should be observed in the long term. Thus, the lower pest damage of Buzzoff cannot be the reason why the food distribution company should return to Buzzoff.
Lastly, more specific evidence is needed on the soundness of the argument that the best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff. The author mentioned that the price charged by Fly-Away is significantly lower than Buzzoff. Then, it is likely that the income of Fly-Away’s override the expense plus damaged worth. On the contrary, if the amount of managing food of Buzzoff is minute, the income of Buzzoff’s would be negligible compared to the expenses. Therefore, returning to Buzoff for all pest control services is not the best way to save money in terms of profit.
To sum up, the author needs to provide concrete evidence on the management of two pest control companies. To strengthen the argument, more verified information should be suggested.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-12 | jackpark33 | 77 | view |
| 2019-01-01 | chay116 | 72 | view |
- The most effective way to understand contemporary culture is to analyze the trends of its youth. 50
- Your recent article on corporate downsizing in Elthyria maintains that the majority of competent workers who have lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment. But this claim 50
- Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our fast-food warehouse in Palm City, but last month we discovered that over $20,000 worth of food there had been destroyed by pest damage. Meanwhile 77
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 439 350
No. of Characters: 2120 1500
No. of Different Words: 174 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.577 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.829 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.434 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 166 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.087 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.199 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.696 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.349 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.537 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.148 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 570, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...t represent the damage during one year. the pest damage can be varied according to ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, second, so, then, therefore, thus, while, on the contrary, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2206.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 439.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02505694761 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57737117129 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5857776239 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.407744874715 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 669.6 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.2151918359 57.8364921388 47% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 91.9166666667 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2916666667 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.08333333333 5.70786347227 89% => 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 : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.352394138762 0.218282227539 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.12412344931 0.0743258471296 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0986196675214 0.0701772020484 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.222891165625 0.128457276422 174% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.105362658879 0.0628817314937 168% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.59 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.