The university wants to build a new dormitory and, reflecting on their experiences with Gimmel Builders and Aleph Constructions, they arguing to hire Aleph Constructions as in the past they had lowest overall cost between the two. The assumptions on which the university is building this argument makes the argument untrue. It is possible that Aleph Constructions can build the dormitory at a lower cost; however, there are circumstances when hiring them can lead to spending more on the building.
The university assumes that the prices of the constructors have not changed in the last five years. If this is false, then they have to reconsider the constructors' positions according to their new prices. Further, the university is considering just the construction cost in the overall cost. If factoring in additional costs- transportation, the land, zoning costs, e.t.c- changes the picture, then the university's argument will fall apart.
Furthermore, the university believes that "nearly identical" buildings should have equal construction cost, and ignores that difference in price could be due to the difference in structure. Their belief makes Gimmel Builders look less economical when they could be more efficient and worth the money. The fact that Gimmel's building costs less in maintenance supports the idea that Gimmel could be a better choice over Aleph.
Additionally, the university also assumes that there are no other constructors in the region. A call for tenders can give them a better option than the two, and will also display them in an equitable position.
The university's decision to choose Aleph Constructions over Gimmel Builders is fair, but their weak assumptions make their argument, and their conclusion, unacceptable.
- Five years ago, the local university built two new dormitories through different contractors. Aleph Construction and Gimmel Builders. The buildings were nearly identical, though it cost Gimmel Builders approximately 20 percent more to construct their dorm 50
- The city council of Town X has proposed reducing the city’s electric expenses by switching all the lights in public buildings from incandescent bulbs to light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The switch would be made gradually as the old incandescent bulbs burn 50
- Airline industry representatives have recently argued that flying is safer than driving, citing two separatestudies. First, US statistics show that each year there are approximately 40,000 deaths in automobileaccidents versus only approximately 200 in fli 63
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
No. of Words: 275 350
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 275 350
No. of Characters: 1437 1500
No. of Different Words: 144 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.072 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.225 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.984 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 94 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 75 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.154 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.608 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.615 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.368 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.593 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.095 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 191, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'had the lowest'.
Suggestion: had the lowest
...Aleph Constructions as in the past they had lowest overall cost between the two. The assum...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, look, so, then, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.6327345309 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 55.5748502994 49% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1494.0 2260.96107784 66% => OK
No of words: 273.0 441.139720559 62% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.47252747253 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.56307096286 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08877014571 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.553113553114 0.468620217663 118% => OK
syllable_count: 446.4 705.55239521 63% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.0678605262 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.923076923 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.92307692308 5.70786347227 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.34730670696 0.218282227539 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.118951890769 0.0743258471296 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0785754049495 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185185536242 0.128457276422 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.090113258093 0.0628817314937 143% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 98.500998004 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.