The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls throughout the country.
"The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by McAdam Road Builders, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous potholes. In another part of the state, a section of Route 66, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago, is still in good condition. Appian Roadways has recently purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery, and it has hired a new quality-control manager. Because of its superior work and commitment to quality, we should contract with Appian Roadways rather than McAdam Road Builders to construct the access roads for all our new shopping malls."
The author of the argument cited that, the roads in one part of the state which was constructed by McAdam Road Builders two years ago has weathered down and is dangerous for the people traveling on that road. However, a road constructed four years ago by Appian Roadways in another part of the city is still in good condition. The conclusion derived by the author that Appian Roadways is a better choice for them to construct road might appear logical at first glance. However, a more critical analysis of the justification supplied by the author has highlighted many questions. Therefore, the premise in their current form are not cogent and the argument is rife with unwarranted assumptions which make it more susceptible to attack.
To begin with, the author has not taken into consideration the amount of traffic on each road. Maybe, Route 101 is the main highway and more frequently used by travelers or it is mostly used by heavy-duty vehicles such as loaded trucks or buses. It will surely lead to more wear and tear of the road if compared to other routes that have a low intensity of traffic. There might be a possibility that traffic on Route 66 is very low and people rarely use that route.
Moreover, Route 101 can be the road which is connected to all the state and if anyone has to go from one part to other has to take Route 101.
Secondly, the author does mention about the new technology that Appian Roadways have recently acquired and has hired a new quality-control manager. However, the author does not mention anything about the technology which McAdam Road Builders have. There can be a possibility that McAdam Road Builders already have the technologies or even more advanced than Appian Roadways have recently acquired. The author does not mention anything about the new quality-manager Appian Roadways has hired because new always does not mean it is good. Maybe the former manager was far more skilled than the new one. Although, Appian Roadways may have acquired new technology and a new quality-control manager, it does not imply that Appian Roadways would be more efficient in their working. Therefore, the author has not provided enough evidence to make the argument convincing.
Thirdly, the author should have also checked the quality of the materials that are used by both companies. Moreover, he should have the labor force and the skills of the manager who will lead the construction. That could have provided a more clear picture of the company which is to be preferred for the task. However, the author has failed to analyze the fact and failed to convince with the reasoning provided.
To sum up, the author's argument is based on unsubstantiated presumptions. The author should have reinforced his argument with more evidence to make the case stronger. The author should have compared both the companies on equal grounds. However, the author failed to examine the facts thereby rendering the argument indefensible.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-22 | sing wang | 63 | view |
| 2019-07-14 | goelchirag21 | 72 | view |
| 2019-07-13 | goelchirag21 | 16 | view |
| 2019-07-13 | goelchirag21 | 16 | view |
| 2019-07-13 | goelchirag21 | 16 | view |
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls throughout the country."The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by McAdam Road Builders, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous 16
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls throughout the country."The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by McAdam Road Builders, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous 72
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls throughout the country."The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by McAdam Road Builders, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous 16
- "In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortabl 82
- In many countries, wood is the primary fuel used for heating and cooking, but wood smoke can cause respiratory and eye problems, and extensive use of wood causes deforestation, a major environmental problem. In contrast, charcoal, made by partially burnin 59
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 10, column 16, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...e reasoning provided. To sum up, the authors argument is based on unsubstantiated pr...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, third, thirdly, as to, such as, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2468.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 498.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95582329317 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72397222731 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68746426094 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.441767068273 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 769.5 705.55239521 109% => 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: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.1067969766 57.8364921388 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 98.72 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.92 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.48 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0925435683235 0.218282227539 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0295449553627 0.0743258471296 40% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.042222472572 0.0701772020484 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0613889799488 0.128457276422 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0502878067742 0.0628817314937 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.46 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.