"The surface of a section of Route 101, paved just two years ago by Good Intentions Roadways, is now badly cracked with a number of dangerous potholes. In another part of the state, a section of Route 40, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago, is still in good condition. In a demonstration of their continuing commitment to quality, Appian Roadways recently purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery and hired a new quality-control manager. Therefore, I recommend hiring Appian Roadways to construct the access roads for all our new shopping malls. I predict that our Appian access roads will not have to be repaired for at least four years."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The author of the argument purportedly highlights that Appian roadways are the best choice for building a new access road for shopping mall because they hired a new control quality manager and a new machine. So, their roads will not need repair at least for four years. However, the premises upon which he puts his claim are fallacious. For the support of which more well-established evidence needs to be given.
First, the author contends that one of the roads named Route 101 constructed by intentions Roadways Company two years ago is now badly damaged by many potholes. However, it does not lend credence to the argument since there is no sufficient evidence to support if all roads constructed by this company are now destroyed. One point that should be considered is that the author just provides information about one road. Indeed, maybe this road is located in a crowded area and majorities of people or other vehicles are in rush coming in and coming out. In such case, the road will destroy as soon as possible and need repair. It is also important to say that the author does not say anything about other roads constructed by this company. There is a possibility that they are in a good condition.
The author also attributes that route 40 paved by Appian Company after four years is still in a good condition and does not need any repair. Although it might seem tenable at a face, it has some defects due to the paucity of evidence that would consolidate the premise the otherwise. One of the main, if not the only, problem with the premise is that the author just represents information about one road. What if other routes have become cracked even after one year? In fact, maybe the author just wants to advertise the construction of Appian Company. Moreover, there is a possibility that other routes paved by Appian are still in a bad condition.
Finally, as set forth by the author the Appian Company demonstrates its commitment to the quality and hired new technology. Nevertheless, the rationale behind this premise could be challenged owing to an inadequate evidence to support if demonstration of commitment is enough for good quality of construction. One point that should not go unnoticed is that maybe Appian Company is just advertising and want to appeal more customers to this demonstration. Or if it is able to pave good roads like route 101, why they hired new technology that might be costly and need a vast sum of money? As a matter of fact, experience and knowledge might be more effective than showing commitment to quality.
Having scrutinized all the premises, a logical conclusion that can be drawn is that there is some evidence, having been ignored by the author while the presence of which could add to the logic of each premise.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-09-23 | Cyclic Order | 66 | view |
| 2018-01-06 | amirbahman | 69 | view |
| 2017-02-09 | atabak | 75 | view |
| 2017-02-09 | atabak | 75 | view |
| 2016-10-24 | Av9ash | 60 | view |
- Should a city try to preserve its old, historic building or destroy them and replace them with modern building? 86
- "Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our 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 Buz 69
- "Two years ago the city voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for the litter and vandalism that were keeping other visitors from coming to the plaza. In the past two years, however, there has 89
- Some people believe that success in life comes from taking risks or chances, others believe that success results from careful planning. In your opinion, what does success come from? 73
- What is one thing you will do to improve your community 91
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
also need to argue:
Therefore, I recommend hiring Appian Roadways to construct the access roads for all our new shopping malls. I predict that our Appian access roads will not have to be repaired for at least four years.
---------------------
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: 478 350
No. of Characters: 2245 1500
No. of Different Words: 220 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.676 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.697 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.606 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 143 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.783 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.5 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.609 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.294 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.489 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.052 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, still, well, while, at least, in fact, as a matter of fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2303.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 478.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8179916318 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67951126907 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.462343096234 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 725.4 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.4945569195 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.130434783 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7826086957 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.69565217391 5.70786347227 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.185837812294 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0578346605802 0.0743258471296 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0756247922793 0.0701772020484 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0942718050264 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0756171677641 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.67 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.