“Of the two leading real estate firms in our town-Adams Realty and Fitch Realty- Adams Realty is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents; in contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch’s $144,000.Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago I listed my home with Fitch, and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams Realty.”
Adams Realty may be better with reference to the real estate agents and amount of revenue, but the author of this argument appears to rely on a number of unsubstantiated assumptions about the attributes that make Adams Realty an attractive arrangement. Based on such assumptions, the author makes a bold statement that only Adams Realty can sell a home at a good price and quickly. The author would be well advised to address these issues to make the point of argument more cogent and convincing.
The author avers that Adams Realty is superior to Fitch Realty. However, he fails to provide proper evidence on which he makes the claim. We are left to believe that Fitch Realty is inferior. For example, the author could have provided a valid survey representing qualitative analysis between the two firms. The author could have also stated more suitable distinguishing factors to illustrate the high standards of one firm over the other. Unless there are enough legitimate data, the author’s argument cannot be backed effectively.
In addition to it, the author implies numerically high real estate agents of Adams Realty. This clearly does not indicate professional efficiency of Adams Realty. It might be a situation where all the agents do not work properly and only a handful of them show commitment. Also according to the author, Fitch Realty has 25 agents, all of whom could be highly dedicated and efficient. The author is not successful enough to create a concrete connection between the realties and their effective proficiency. We do not know whether the data provided for the number of agents, in reality, showcases the supremacy of Adams Realty. To strengthen the argument, the author would benefit from implementing an affirmative result on the number of agents actually working in their respective firms.
Building upon the implication that Adams’ revenue was twice as high as that of Fitch’s clearly asserts that it was not only from its real estate’s but also included home sales. Moreover, the author does not mention the amount of home sales separately, thus leading to a loophole on the averaged amount indicated in the argument. On the other hand, nothing has been said about the home sales of Fitch Realty. It has earned the amount just by selling the revenue. This information has been taken a year ago, whereas the current situation might be completely different.
Finally, the author blindly believes that Adams Realty sells home faster than Fitch. This may not be true and is based on irrational assumptions. For example, ten years ago Fitch Realty could have been a fledgling company or it did not have attractive features so it took more than four months to sell a house. Back then, the economy could have been poor and people could not have agreed to put in their money for buying homes. Nowhere has the author discussed the price of homes at which they are sold. So, how can we assume that Fitch does not sell houses at a good price and only Adams sell houses at a price higher than Fitch’s? No examples have been illustrated to make the point valid.
There are certain discrepancies between the two real estate firms which gives us an impression that the author is illogically biased towards Adams Realty than to Fitch Realty. While the author may recommend Adams Realty, more information is needed to clearly justify its dominance in order to appear as a popular and lucrative deal in the market.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2016-09-05 | sampadacharya3 | 83 | view |
- The first step to self-knowledge is rejection of the familiar. 50
- The rating system for electronic games is similar to the movie rating system in that it provides consumers with a quick reference so that they can determine if the subject matter and contents are appropriate. This electronic game rating system is not work 83
- “Of the two leading real estate firms in our town-Adams Realty and Fitch Realty- Adams Realty is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents; in contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams revenue last year was twice 83
- The autonomy of any country is based on the strength of its borders; if the number of illegal immigrants entering a country cannot be checked, both its economy and national identity are endangered. Because illegal immigrants pose such threats, every effor 75
- We recommend that Monarch Books open a café in its store. Monarch,having been in business at the same location for more than twenty years,has a large customer base because it is known for its wide selection of bookson all subjects. Clearly, opening the c 70
Comments
Essay evaluation report by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 538, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... argument cannot be backed effectively. In addition to it, the author implies nu...
^^^
Line 3, column 274, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...only a handful of them show commitment. Also according to the author, Fitch Realty h...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'but', 'finally', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'well', 'whereas', 'while', 'for example', 'in addition', 'such as', 'with reference to', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.251155624037 0.25644967241 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.163328197227 0.15541462614 105% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0724191063174 0.0836205057962 87% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0739599383667 0.0520304965353 142% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0292758089368 0.0272364105082 107% => OK
Prepositions: 0.101694915254 0.125424944231 81% => OK
Participles: 0.0431432973806 0.0416121511921 104% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.66196664926 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0292758089368 0.026700313972 110% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.107858243451 0.113004496875 95% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0246533127889 0.0255425247493 97% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0123266563945 0.0127820249294 96% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3457.0 2731.13054187 127% => OK
No of words: 579.0 446.07635468 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.97063903282 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90534594407 4.57801047555 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.362694300518 0.378187486979 96% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.236614853195 0.287650121315 82% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.160621761658 0.208842608468 77% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.108808290155 0.135150697306 81% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66196664926 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Unique words: 277.0 207.018472906 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478411053541 0.469332199767 102% => OK
Word variations: 58.0079143677 52.1807786196 111% => OK
How many sentences: 30.0 20.039408867 150% => OK
Sentence length: 19.3 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.9405412825 57.7814097925 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.233333333 141.986410481 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.633333333333 0.724660767414 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 42.9614853195 51.9672348444 83% => OK
Elegance: 1.48554913295 1.8405768891 81% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.390141233797 0.441005458295 88% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0891983686598 0.135418324435 66% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0690407501817 0.0829849096947 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.509050831311 0.58762219726 87% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.140143302943 0.147661913831 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.14194237736 0.193483328276 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0974641538263 0.0970749176394 100% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.391007113318 0.42659136922 92% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0758509483645 0.0774707102158 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.268320969004 0.312017818177 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0662138964106 0.0698173142475 95% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.33743842365 180% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 12.0 6.46551724138 186% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 7.0 2.82389162562 248% => OK
Total topic words: 26.0 14.657635468 177% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 538, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... argument cannot be backed effectively. In addition to it, the author implies nu...
^^^
Line 3, column 274, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...only a handful of them show commitment. Also according to the author, Fitch Realty h...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'but', 'finally', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'well', 'whereas', 'while', 'for example', 'in addition', 'such as', 'with reference to', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.251155624037 0.25644967241 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.163328197227 0.15541462614 105% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0724191063174 0.0836205057962 87% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0739599383667 0.0520304965353 142% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0292758089368 0.0272364105082 107% => OK
Prepositions: 0.101694915254 0.125424944231 81% => OK
Participles: 0.0431432973806 0.0416121511921 104% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.66196664926 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0292758089368 0.026700313972 110% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.107858243451 0.113004496875 95% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0246533127889 0.0255425247493 97% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0123266563945 0.0127820249294 96% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3457.0 2731.13054187 127% => OK
No of words: 579.0 446.07635468 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.97063903282 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90534594407 4.57801047555 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.362694300518 0.378187486979 96% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.236614853195 0.287650121315 82% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.160621761658 0.208842608468 77% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.108808290155 0.135150697306 81% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66196664926 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Unique words: 277.0 207.018472906 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478411053541 0.469332199767 102% => OK
Word variations: 58.0079143677 52.1807786196 111% => OK
How many sentences: 30.0 20.039408867 150% => OK
Sentence length: 19.3 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.9405412825 57.7814097925 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.233333333 141.986410481 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.633333333333 0.724660767414 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 42.9614853195 51.9672348444 83% => OK
Elegance: 1.48554913295 1.8405768891 81% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.390141233797 0.441005458295 88% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0891983686598 0.135418324435 66% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0690407501817 0.0829849096947 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.509050831311 0.58762219726 87% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.140143302943 0.147661913831 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.14194237736 0.193483328276 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0974641538263 0.0970749176394 100% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.391007113318 0.42659136922 92% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0758509483645 0.0774707102158 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.268320969004 0.312017818177 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0662138964106 0.0698173142475 95% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.33743842365 180% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 12.0 6.46551724138 186% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 7.0 2.82389162562 248% => OK
Total topic words: 26.0 14.657635468 177% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.