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 dormitory. Aleph's dormitory, however, has required approximately 10 percent more in maintenance costs per year over the past five years. Therefore, to construct their new dormitory with the lowest overall cost, the local university should hire Aleph Construction.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions in the expert's claim. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
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.
- 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 70
- The following is a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria."Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for 83
- People should question the rule of authority as opposed to accepting them passively Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and s 72
- 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 the resoning for the posit 62
- A recent study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that employees with paid sick leave are 28 less likely to be involved in a work related accident than employees that do not receive payment for the sick leave Researchers hypothesize th 66
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...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'firstly', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'while']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.279646017699 0.25644967241 109% => OK
Verbs: 0.138053097345 0.15541462614 89% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0778761061947 0.0836205057962 93% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0336283185841 0.0520304965353 65% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0176991150442 0.0272364105082 65% => OK
Prepositions: 0.136283185841 0.125424944231 109% => OK
Participles: 0.0283185840708 0.0416121511921 68% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.98574449998 2.79052419416 107% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0265486725664 0.026700313972 99% => OK
Particles: 0.0070796460177 0.001811407834 391% => OK
Determiners: 0.129203539823 0.113004496875 114% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0300884955752 0.0255425247493 118% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00353982300885 0.0127820249294 28% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3245.0 2731.13054187 119% => OK
No of words: 522.0 446.07635468 117% => OK
Chars per words: 6.21647509579 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77988695657 4.57801047555 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.344827586207 0.378187486979 91% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.275862068966 0.287650121315 96% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.222222222222 0.208842608468 106% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.170498084291 0.135150697306 126% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98574449998 2.79052419416 107% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 207.018472906 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444444444444 0.469332199767 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 51.3535589532 52.1807786196 98% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 23.2022227129 125% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.3269087242 57.7814097925 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 180.277777778 141.986410481 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.0 23.2022227129 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.611111111111 0.724660767414 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 56.5862068966 51.9672348444 109% => OK
Elegance: 2.34579439252 1.8405768891 127% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.32924765183 0.441005458295 75% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.170073609592 0.135418324435 126% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0859003751511 0.0829849096947 104% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.683064269847 0.58762219726 116% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.1096615551 0.147661913831 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.167642187252 0.193483328276 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0560521104765 0.0970749176394 58% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.562508670712 0.42659136922 132% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0213391577695 0.0774707102158 28% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.245233902266 0.312017818177 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0517173422309 0.0698173142475 74% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.