The argument here is addressing the choice of a company that builds shopping malls around the country. Good intention roadways and appian roadways are being compared for the choice for construction of the access roads. The author here has cleared missed on a few points and coming to a decision maybe helpful by some of the issues that have to be addressed. The memo only reads a surface of a section of Route 101 paved just 2 years ago by Good Intention Roadways and is now cracked with potholes.
The first question in this argument to be answered is how is the vehicular traffic along the Route 101? Without any claim of the traffic and what type of vehicles frequent this route, it will be difficult to establish the cause of the section caving in. If this route is mostly frequented by heavy vehicles despite being an access road to the malls, this could a probable cause for the cracks.
The second question to be addressed is in which part of the state is Route 40 paved by Appian roadways. As it is clear from the statement that these two constructions are in different parts of the state, there is no mention of the weather conditions in either state. If Route 101 happens to be in a snowy region, these potholes maybe due to the snowblowers or accumulation of the water or ice requiring regular re-pavement.
The third question to be answered is, what raw materials have been used for either road pavements and what are their costs. There is no mention of the costs for the construction of the roads. The memo claims that appian roadways has maintained their quality but there is no evidence to clarify how the quality has been maintained. Hiring a new quality control manager is not suggestive of maintaining good quality.
Lastly I would like to conclude that the memo gives a very vague idea of the reason for hiring appian roadways. Although agreeable that the appian roadway construction did not cave in and maintained its quality at route 40, there is no evidence of standard quality maintenance. How hiring appian roadways for construction of roads for all malls will be advantageous over another companies is also not mentioned. The memo only compares two of the construction companies weighing one over the other
- Claim: Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today.Reason: The world today is significantly more complex than it was even in the relatively recent past.Write a response in which you discuss the exten 75
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls around the country."The surface of a section of Route 101, paved just two years ago by Good Intentions Roadways, is now badly cracked 63
- True success can be measured primarily in terms of the goals one sets for oneself.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 ta 50
- The following appeared in a memo from a budget planner for the city of Grandview."It is time for the city of Grandview to stop funding the Grandview Symphony Orchestra. It is true that the symphony struggled financially for many ye 63
- It is more harmful to compromise one's own beliefs than to adhere to them.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 d 50
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- can be put together at argument 1
argument 3 -- need to argue a bit more:
In a demonstration of their continuing commitment to quality, Appian Roadways recently purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery and hired a new quality-control manager.
----------------
Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
Therefore, I recommend hiring Appian Roadways to construct the access roads for all our new shopping malls. I predict that our Appian access roads will not have to be repaired for at least four years.
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 389 350
No. of Characters: 1816 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.441 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.668 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.585 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 65 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.611 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.024 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.444 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.569 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.074 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 313, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...d coming to a decision maybe helpful by some of the issues that have to be addressed. The m...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ys and is now cracked with potholes. The first question in this argument to be a...
^^^
Line 9, column 497, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...on companies weighing one over the other
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, lastly, may, second, so, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1857.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 389.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.77377892031 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44106776838 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63216981721 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.491002570694 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 567.0 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 27.7059070227 57.8364921388 48% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 103.166666667 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6111111111 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.88888888889 5.70786347227 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.198324390348 0.218282227539 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0688078565088 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0961507381853 0.0701772020484 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111066920484 0.128457276422 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.100699005624 0.0628817314937 160% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.39 12.5979740519 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.