The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities.
"Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our fast-food warehouse in Palm City, but last month we discovered that over $20,000 worth of food there had been destroyed by pest damage. Meanwhile, the Buzzoff Pest Control Company, which we have used for many years, continued to service our warehouse in Wintervale, and last month only $10,000 worth of the food stored there had been destroyed by pest damage. Even though the price charged by Fly-Away is considerably lower, our best means of saving money is to return to Buzzoff for all our pest control services."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument
It may be true that company should find solutions to lower the pest damage of food at fast-food warehouse in Palm City. However, the evidence provided by the author is not substantial enough to help evaluate whether changing Flay-Away Pest Control Company at warehouse in Palm City to Buzzoff, the previous one, is truly the best solution. Lacking relevance and substance, the evidence renders the author’s argument rather weak, and thus unlikely to convince the company to return to Buzzoff for all their pest control services.
Suggesting pest damage cost at fast-food warehouse in Palm City, the author refers to over $20,000 worth of food destroyed by pest damage in last month. The scope and depth of information, however, is insufficient. Specific report on the food damage would help evaluate how pest control service by Fly-Away has influenced on the extent of the damage. The report may reveal that the some food had already infected before contracting with Fly-away, weakening the author’s call to address problems with Fly-Away’s pest control service. Also, food damage reports from previous month are required to evaluate whether this problem can be interpreted as a perpetual rather than transient concern. Evidence may refute the argument, bringing to light a temporary increase in disease and insects due to seasonal influence or a certain epidemic diseases. Specific details on this report would help determine whether the argument should be considered.
Building on the fact in support that food infection increased last month, the author compares the service from Fly-Away Pest Control Company with the Buzzoff, their previous long-term partner. However, verifiable comparative data on both warehouses and pest control companies should be offered. The condition and food safety policy of warehouse of Wintervale could be different from that of Palm City. It is possible that the food in Wintervale is less infected, for it has more moderate weather and strict food safety policy. The information on type of fast-food stored in each warehouse should also be demonstrated, for vulnerability to pest is largely contingent upon the sort of food. Furthermore, the method of killing insects would be disparate for both companies. The effectiveness of pesticide of Wintervale could be powerful at first, but lack in durability since it develops a tolerance.
The vice president’s argument that changing the pest control company to the previous one for all their pest services may seemingly reasonable. The contingency of the author’s argument, however, is subject to the unspecified evidences. The more relevant proof should be offered to accurately assess the argument’s strength or weakness.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-19 | evanlu | 59 | view |
| 2019-07-15 | Praveen_Kumar98 | 63 | view |
| 2019-06-02 | zickzion123 | 82 | view |
| 2019-05-25 | saeidroky | 59 | view |
| 2019-03-14 | chelsey | 82 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
It may be true that company should find ...
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...or all their pest control services. Suggesting pest damage cost at fast-food...
^^
Line 3, column 383, Rule ID: THE_SOME_DAY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'same'?
Suggestion: same
... damage. The report may reveal that the some food had already infected before contra...
^^^^
Line 3, column 845, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'disease'?
Suggestion: disease
...easonal influence or a certain epidemic diseases. Specific details on this report would ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the argument should be considered. Building on the fact in support that foo...
^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lity since it develops a tolerance. The vice president's argument that ...
^^
Line 7, column 151, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...pest services may seemingly reasonable. The contingency of the author's argume...
^^^
Line 7, column 248, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...s subject to the unspecified evidences. The more relevant proof should be offered t...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, thus, sort of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2320.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 424.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47169811321 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53775939005 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94621825892 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.497641509434 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 714.6 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.9505799715 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.0 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.3 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.415543295487 0.218282227539 190% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.131471732069 0.0743258471296 177% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106588486563 0.0701772020484 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.270277323248 0.128457276422 210% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0579378121578 0.0628817314937 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 98.500998004 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.