Cot-Ten, a cotton production company, has recently faced profitability issues based on the use of
Chemical X in its manufacturing process. The main by-product produced when using Chemical X is
covered under stringent environmental regulations, making it very difficult and expensive to dispose of. A
similar processing product, Chemical Y, has recently been discovered, and can be used by Cot-Ten at a
minimal cost of switching. The CEO of Cot-Ten has declared that the company will increase profits by
switching to Chemical Y by the end of the month.
The author states that Cot-Ten company recently faced profitability with the use of chemical X which is expensive to dispose. So, the company decided to substitute the chemical X with the newly discovered chemical Y. However, the proposal contains some flaws and will not be accepted if the conclusion fails to answer some question. Moreover, the questions draw some critical assumption which is important to draw an accurate conclusion.
Firstly, the author claims that the chemical Y is minimum cost of disposing of than chemical X. But, chemical Y may be harmful to the environment and company Cot-Ten does not take any step to investigate on the chemical Y how it harms the environment. Moreover, without proper investigation dispose of any chemical may harm humans health which could not see immediately but works insidiously. Thus, company should more research on chemical Y before disposing of.
Secondly, for disposing of chemical Y the total cost is not shown by the author and also the chemical X. However, chemical Y is newly discovered by company and need to more awareness among the employee of the company before use. So, the company needs to arrange a workshop or training program for the employee and various different infrastructure to increse the adaptability of the chemical Y. For this problem, the company needs to more accurate calculation on the cost. So, this assumption is undermining the proposed statement.
Moreover, the CEO did not mention the production of the cotton. It might be possible that chemical Y is harmful to the production of cotton. Then the company will face profitability issue. It is important to more analysis to chemical Y on the production. It is also possible that chemical Y effects the overall production of the cotton and creates more injurious or poisonous gas in the environment. So, CEO needs more clarification on the chemical Y.
To conclude that the overall hypothesis is very interesting but it has some critical flaws and without correction, it cannot be accepted. So, more information is reqiured to validate the statement.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-14 | Seema Modak | 77 | view |
| 2019-01-27 | Parth12 | 43 | view |
| 2018-09-16 | A.I. | 66 | view |
| 2018-09-11 | A.I. | 73 | view |
| 2018-08-17 | borahlohit05@gmail.com | 35 | view |
- Schools should cut funding for extracurricular activities such as sports and the arts when schoolbuildings are in need of repair. 50
- tpo 48In recent years, many frog species around the world have declined in numbers or even gone extinct due to changes in their environment. These population declines and extinctions have serious consequences for the ecosystems in which frogs live; for ex 75
- Creativity should be used as the only true measure of intelligence. 50
- The fact that technology is outpacing the needs of those in cultures that can afford the technologycreates cultures of excess consumerism. 16
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?The rules that societies today expect young people to follow and obey are too strict.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 76
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 341 350
No. of Characters: 1709 1500
No. of Different Words: 147 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.297 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.012 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.933 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 133 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 117 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.059 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.09 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.824 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.378 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.598 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.113 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1757.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 341.0 441.139720559 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15249266862 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29722995808 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99373706647 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.445747800587 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 565.2 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => 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: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.7268549311 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.6666666667 119.503703932 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2380952381 23.324526521 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.14285714286 5.70786347227 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.169517833289 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0602456492058 0.0743258471296 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0625708709821 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0947856169316 0.128457276422 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0670089409012 0.0628817314937 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.29 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.67 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 98.500998004 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.