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.
The memo states that vice president of food distribution company has recently signed a contract with Fly-Away Pest Control Company for pest control services instead of
Buzzoff Pest Control Company which had taken care of company's past pest control needs. However, the move was based upon high price charged by Buzzoff company as compared to Fly-away. Nevertheless, though the Fly-Away charged less but it destroyed 20000 dollars worth of food as compared to Buzzoff which just caused 10000 dollars worth of food damage. The memo concludes that it should because of this reason resort to their previous company. However, while the conclusion drawn from the argument may hold water, it is based upon several unstated assumptions, if not substantiated, will significantly weaken the persuasiveness of the argument. Thus, the following questions must be answered.
Firstly, It may be the case that Fly-Away don't usually do damage but it may be the result of unintended consequences? It does not mean that the food distribution
company should just resort to their previous company. Everyone deserves a second chance. Moreover, before jumping to conclusions company should investigate what went down thoroughly and then take the decision. Perhaps ask them for concession in price for future services. Nevertheless, if the Fly-Away acknowledges their mistake and agrees to some how mitigate damages done by them and also vows for something of this sort will not happen again then the conclusion drawn from the argument will not hold water.
Secondly, The Food distribution company just assumes that all the fault is of Fly-Away. It may be the case that warehouse at which pest damage occur may be prone to pest damage or the external factors there facilitates travesty of this sort. Moreover, It may be possible that employees working at that warehouse are dilletante which the company overlooked. Therefore, company would be at fault because of these one or two employees of theirs. In that case company might take charge of compensating damage and fire those picayune employees. If either of the above scenarios are true, then the conclusion drawn from the argument is significantly weakened.
In conlusion, the Food distribution should investigate thoroughly before jumping to irrelevant conclusion and explore all their options. The argument as it stands is deeply flawed because of above stated reasons.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-18 | Technoblade | 63 | view |
| 2023-05-29 | abidek001 | 63 | view |
| 2023-03-02 | 宋致遠 | 82 | view |
| 2023-02-17 | HSNDEK | 68 | view |
| 2022-12-06 | abhikhanna | 70 | view |
- The luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals 50
- In any field of inquiry the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions 50
- 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 w 59
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 382 350
No. of Characters: 1984 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.421 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.194 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.707 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 152 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.1 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.203 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.459 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.073 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 168, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...any for pest control services instead of Buzzoff Pest Control Company which had t...
^^^
Line 4, column 44, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...rstly, It may be the case that Fly-Away dont usually do damage but it may be the res...
^^^^
Line 5, column 344, Rule ID: SOME_HOW[1]
Message: Did you mean 'somehow'?
Suggestion: somehow
...cknowledges their mistake and agrees to some how mitigate damages done by them and also ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, look, may, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2034.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 381.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33858267717 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79739547233 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.496062992126 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 617.4 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 57.2021852729 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.7 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.05 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.25 5.70786347227 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.357265873738 0.218282227539 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0897457145449 0.0743258471296 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.123995029275 0.0701772020484 177% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.217488956673 0.128457276422 169% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.201336446447 0.0628817314937 320% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.