In the given memo, the writer suggests that the new construction of all the access roads should be given to the Appian Road Construction Company. To strengthen his recommendation, he states that the quality of construction is good of the Appian Road Construction Company than Good Intention Roadway Company. At first glance, however, the recommendation seems plausible and valid, but, close scrutinization would reveal that the given recommendation is unsound and unconvincing.
To begin with, the writer claims that the work of Good Intention Roadway Company is very bad. The constructed roads have so many potholes and are badly cracked that the maintenance cost is very high. But the roads which are constructed by Appian Company have no such problems of potholes and cracks. So that the company vice president recommends to give the contract to the Appian Company. However, the vice president's decision is very hasty. He fails to compare many other things before recommending other company. The argument would be sound if he provides the other information about construction techniques, the materials used, the geographical location, the traffics and law enforcement to prevent heavy loading and speeding.
What is more, the writer claims that the roads which constructed by Appian Company are more durable than road constructed by Good Intention Company. However, he fails to answer the questions whether the location of these two road areas is comparable. It may be possible that these two areas are completely different with respect in location: one may be in the hilly area and another may be in the core city which makes these Appian constructed roads more vulnerable to crack and potholes. He also doesn't mention that the construction material used in the construction of roads which are also the main reason why these problems arise. Durability and reliability of road greatly depend upon the material used which he doesn't mention here which makes his argument unsound.
Additionally, the writer also believes that the new manager and the so-called newly purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery will make the will make the construction of roads structurally sound. However, it is not guaranteed about that claim. Perhaps, the newly purchased machine will not work properly. If the new manager may be corrupted, the quality of roads will decrease. Hence, by decreasing the durability of the road and thereby ultimately increasing the maintenance cost and maintenance period.
In sum, the argument is not sound and convincing as the argument fails to answer the following questions: is the workability and reliability of newly purchased machine check? Can the manager manage his work properly and efficiently? Are the same working techniques used to construct road as the Appian Company used before four years ago? If the argument could answer these above-mentioned questions, then, the argument would be sound and convincing.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- duplicated to argument 1
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
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: 24 15
No. of Words: 467 350
No. of Characters: 2425 1500
No. of Different Words: 200 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.649 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.193 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.867 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 164 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 134 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.458 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.109 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.301 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.506 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.124 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 300, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[3]
Message: “So that” 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.
...o such problems of potholes and cracks. So that the company vice president recommends t...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 497, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...lnerable to crack and potholes. He also doesnt mention that the construction material ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 716, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... depend upon the material used which he doesnt mention here which makes his argument u...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 14, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...kes his argument unsound. Additionally, the writer also believes that the new ma...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, so, then, to begin with, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2480.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 464.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34482758621 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64119157421 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95447020185 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.428879310345 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 757.8 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.231348232 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.333333333 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3333333333 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.33333333333 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.0854526040826 0.218282227539 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0315976779677 0.0743258471296 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0391184238776 0.0701772020484 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0525287477911 0.128457276422 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0328745965781 0.0628817314937 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.05 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.