Five years ago, the local university built tow new dormitories through different contractors: Aleph Construction and Gimmel Builders. The buildings were nearly identical, though it cost Gimmel Builders approximately 20% more to construct its dormitory. Aleph's dormitory, however has required approximately 10% more in maintenance costs per year over the last five years. Therefore to construct another new dormitory with lowers cost, the local university should hire Aleph construction.
Write a response in which you examine the stated/ 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.
In the editorial from local newspaper, local community has proposed to construct another new dormitory with help of Aleph Constructions in order to save the money. They have come to this conclusion with their past experience, where Gimmel Builders took more money to construct the same building which Aleph Construction did in the small amount. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, author needs to answer these questions.
First of all, are the other factors such as land, zoning cost taken into consideration? Is Aleph Construction providing these factors at a lesser price? It is possible that Aleph Construction is charging more for land acquisition as compared to Gimmel builders. Maybe the transportation cost of Gimmel builders is considerably less. In such case, the overall cost will reduce drastically. If the above scenario holds merit, the original argument is undermined.
Secondly, is the quality of work comparable? Is the increase in 10% maintenance a good sign? Maybe the increase in maintenance every year a direct sign of bad construction. It is possible that the Gimmel builders provide better quality at the start, so their maintenance cost is significantly less. So, the residents have to pay less every year in such case. This will save a significant amount of money every year. If this holds true, original argument no longer holds water.
Thirdly, has the community approached other builders? Are all the builders charging more than Aleph Construction? It is possible that there are other local builders who are ready to construct the dormitory at lower price. Maybe “xyz” construction company is charging significantly less as compared to Aleph Construction, but they are not approached. In such case, it will be better for the local community to hunt for more builders rather than just relying on the past experience.
In conclusion, as the argument stands now, is completely flawed due to it’s reliance on unwanted assumptions. There are many unexplored variables which still require more attention. If the author provides answer to the above questions with proper evidence then it will be possible to evaluate the viability of the proposal to handover the new dormitory project to the Aleph Construction.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 24 15
No. of Words: 360 350
No. of Characters: 1851 1500
No. of Different Words: 172 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.356 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.142 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.885 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 122 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 100 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.095 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.276 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.484 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.065 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 174, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ns in order to save the money. They have come to this conclusion with their past ...
^^
Line 1, column 211, Rule ID: PAST_EXPERIENCE_MEMORY[1]
Message: Use simply 'experience'.
Suggestion: experience
...ave come to this conclusion with their past experience, where Gimmel Builders took more money ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...uthor needs to answer these questions. First of all, are the other factors s...
^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he original argument is undermined. Secondly, is the quality of work compara...
^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nal argument no longer holds water. Thirdly, has the community approached o...
^^^
Line 7, column 12, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t no longer holds water. Thirdly, has the community approached other build...
^^
Line 7, column 301, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[1]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
... company is charging significantly less as compared to Aleph Construction, but the...
^^
Line 7, column 479, Rule ID: PAST_EXPERIENCE_MEMORY[1]
Message: Use simply 'experience'.
Suggestion: experience
...uilders rather than just relying on the past experience. In conclusion, as the argumen...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ust relying on the past experience. In conclusion, as the argument stands no...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 193, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...les which still require more attention. If the author provides answer to the above...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 11.1786427146 9% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1928.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 360.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35555555556 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35587717469 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02782874575 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.502777777778 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 600.3 705.55239521 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.4316193062 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 80.3333333333 119.503703932 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.0 23.324526521 64% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.875 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.67664670659 278% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.260344059955 0.218282227539 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0726365968557 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.073609185178 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147505608944 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0712462468365 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 48.3550499002 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.22 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.