According to the letter of a national newspaper, the author asserts the downsizing has no deleterious impact on the majority of workers who have lost jobs. As his pieces of evidence, he states that lots of jobs have been created and the low unemployment rate in Elthyria. Also, he states that these jobs are suitable for those who have been downsized. This argument might seem persuasive at first but to move forward would certainly require more evidence and thought for three reasons.
First, the author needs to provide solid evidence on the innate condition of 1999 and the present to prove that the downsized people actually acquired new jobs. The author rashly believes the inherent condition of 1999 and the present are similar. However, it is plausible the economic condition of 1999 was sound and that of recent is adverse. In such a case, new jobs would not be created enough to afford the downsized people. Also, in all likelihood, the population in Elthyria might have increased at an unprecedented speed. In such a case, the increase of jobs would be insufficient to accommodate the downsized workers. Rather than re-hiring the downsized worker, it would be only logical to think the majority of job services are allocated to the increased population. Thus, the increase in jobs created is insufficient compared to the increase in population growth.
Second, the author needs to supplement the argument with more concrete evidence on the relationship between the unemployment rate and competent workers finding suitable jobs. He hastily reasons that the low level of the unemployment rate is the result of job finding of the downsized workers. However, it is plausible that those who lost jobs did not obtain the newly created job. In such a case, those who lost jobs due to the downsizing still do suffer from unemployment. Even though they obtained newly created jobs, it does not guarantee the quality of the jobs. As they are competent workers, the quality of the jobs matters. It is possible these jobs proposed are not suitable for then. Then, the competent workers are not benefitting from the low unemployment rate.
Lastly, more specific evidence is needed on the newly created jobs in industries "tend to" pay above-average wages. The author adamantly states that two-third of these jobs have been in the industries only tend to pay above average wage. Does it mean one-third of these jobs otherwise pay below-average wages? Or does it mean most of two-third of these jobs can actually pay below average occasionally? It is plausible that the industry peremptorily changes their policy of wage and does not pay above-average anymore. Or the above average payment can be just an aberration. In addition, if the initial number of jobs is marginal, two-thirds may not be substantial. To elucidate, two-third may be just a marginal number regarding the number of jobs lost. Then the author's claim is not cogent to warrant that the corporate downsizing does not have a deleterious impact on fired workers.
By examining all the various angles and factors involved with corporate downsizing, it can be concluded that the author's claim are not cogent. To bolster his argument, he should provide more verified information about the economic condition and other circumstances of the past and present. Also, he should suggest accurate information of the newly created
- We learn our most valuable lessons in life from struggling with our limitations rather than from enjoying our successes 94
- The well being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority 83
- One month ago all the showerheads in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers complex were modified to restrict maximum water flow to one third of what it used to be Although actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not 73
- The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper Your recent article on corporate downsizing in Elthyria maintains that the majority of competent workers who have lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship o 70
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 10 2
No. of Sentences: 32 15
No. of Words: 556 350
No. of Characters: 2765 1500
No. of Different Words: 219 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.856 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.973 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.727 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 201 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 163 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 114 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.375 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.715 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.531 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.298 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.298 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.19 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, lastly, may, regarding, second, so, still, then, third, thus, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 73.0 55.5748502994 131% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2838.0 2260.96107784 126% => OK
No of words: 556.0 441.139720559 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10431654676 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85588840946 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79886397725 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.426258992806 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 895.5 705.55239521 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 4.96107784431 282% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 19.7664670659 162% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.8204857806 57.8364921388 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 88.6875 119.503703932 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.375 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.5625 5.70786347227 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.88822355289 232% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.226277903933 0.218282227539 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0630281665686 0.0743258471296 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0580015459917 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12700074785 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0646588561017 0.0628817314937 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.0 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 98.500998004 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => 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.