The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities. 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."
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.
This argument states that it makes financial sense for the food distribution company to continue service from Buzzoff Pest Control Company for their better performance to protect the food warehouses against pest damages. This argument appears to be logical and reasonable at first glance. When considering the process of reasoning, however, a quite amount of evidence is indispensable to guarantee the vice president’s suggestion.
Citing data of the loss from two food warehouses, the vice president suggests that Buzzoff provides a more effective service. However, the number of stock in the inventory is needed to evaluate a more objective number of loss. For example, the percentage of the food loss of each food warehouse. Even though Fly-away served the warehouse in Palm City lost food that worth 20,000 dollars, the total quantity of food stored in the warehouse is unknown. If the total amount of the food is worthy of a million dollars and a 2% loss is reported. Analogously, if the food warehouse in Wintervale contains food that is only worthy of ten thousand dollars, the percentage of loss, which is t10%, is considerably high compared to that of Palm City. Therefore, without sufficient evidence of the true quantity in stocks of each food warehouse, the argument remains specious and we cannot warrant the vice president’s suggestion.
Secondly, the environmental factors should be taken into account when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of these two companies. The two warehouses are located on different spots which may share different environment with each other, such as: humidity, average temperature and so on. Some factors may be advantageous for certain pests to breed; therefore, they can easily damage more food in stock. Consequently, due to the environmental difference between two food warehouses, we cannot determine if Buzzoff is of effectiveness even though its service gives a favorable report; maybe the surroundings in Wintervale is not suitable for pests to breed and it is an easy job for Buzzoff to handle, whereas Palm City may provide a perfect breeding ground for pests to grow and inevitably, a seemingly considerable loss is caused. Thus, without taking natural factors into account, the argument is fallacious.
Moreover, judging from an one-month statistic is far from enough to justify the vice president’s suggestion. The argument only examine one-month report. What if Fly-away happens to perform poorly in last month and serve gracefully in others? Also, even though Fly-away has performed badly for a long time and the loss of food can be compensated for the relatively low price charged, it doesn’t hold up the vice president’s position. With the lack of long-term statistical reports to rationalize the high charge of Buzzoff’s service, we are not able to regard the suggestion as feasible.
Finally, although the foregoing assumptions turn out to be valid, the vice president only considers two companies as if they are the only choices. Are there pest control companies providing not only better effectiveness than Buzzoff, but also charging cheaper than Fly-away? We don’t know. The vice president may take other potential companies into consideration in order to justify the argument.
In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To better assess the argument I would need to know the number of the quantity of each food warehouse, the actual environmental factors which hinder the protection service, a long-term statistical report and also the availability of other pest control companies.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-06-07 | noobmaster69 | 66 | view |
- Some people say that advertising encourages us to buy things we really do not need. Others say that advertisements tell us about new products that may improve our lives. Which viewpoint do you agree with? 76
- The following appeared in a memo to the board of directors of Bargain Brand Cereals.One year ago we introduced our first product, Bargain Brand breakfast cereal. Our very low prices quickly drew many customers away from the top-selling cereal companies. A 66
- To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards. 66
- Some people like doing work by hand. Others prefer using machines. Which do you prefer? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 90
- If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it are justifiable. 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 342, Rule ID: A_RB_NN[1]
Message: You used an adverb ('quite') instead an adjective, or a noun ('amount') instead of another adjective.
...ring the process of reasoning, however, a quite amount of evidence is indispensable to guarant...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 24, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...s fallacious. Moreover, judging from an one-month statistic is far from enough ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, whereas, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 58.6224719101 125% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3049.0 2235.4752809 136% => OK
No of words: 567.0 442.535393258 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37742504409 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87972968509 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08691958664 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 277.0 215.323595506 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.488536155203 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 951.3 704.065955056 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 17.0 4.99550561798 340% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 80.6737530915 60.3974514979 134% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.269230769 118.986275619 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8076923077 23.4991977007 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.26923076923 5.21951772744 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.335756089119 0.243740707755 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0885967929718 0.0831039109588 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0740377542083 0.0758088955206 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.180439383046 0.150359130593 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0711758178726 0.0667264976115 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.8420337079 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 152.0 100.480337079 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.