The following appeared in the memo from the Vice President of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities.
"according to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year ..
The vice president is of the opnion that the pest control company they have signed a contract with is creating more losses than the former one. Even though, it is chargeing a lower amount for its services he/she advises that the company must switch back to the former pest-controller. This is so because the monetary loss created by the new one are higerh than the old one. However, there seem to be quite a few more factors to be considered before taking the said decision. These are as discussed below.
As the Buzzoff Pest Control (BPC) has worked for many years with the company the president wishes to go back to it on the failure of the new pest controller. Since the former too incurred losses why not look for a another pest-contol company altogether? There could be more options.
The company has been in alliance with (BPC) for a longer time period than Fly-away pest control (APC) hence, the latter has not been given enough trial time to prove its proficiancy. The firm needs to be given time to gauge the areas that have to be protected , find the right equipments and chemicals suitable to the grain, check for its accessibility etc. To have ideal results in a month’s time is too ambitious and erroneous.
Another problem with the suggestion is that BPC and APC have worked in differnt cities. Those cities could be differnt with respect to climate, insect habitaiton and breeding etc. Thus, to compare the performance of the companies put in different warehouses seem unfair.
Lastly, APC has caused a loss worth ten thousand dollars more than BPC but what if the APC has managed to save more grain. In other words, the grain stored by APC could be more expensive. Thus, the damage to a small food quantity could mean a relatively greater monetary loss.
Hence, all in all, there needs to be a undertaken a thorough scrutiny of the the two comapnys’ functioning prior to condeming one more inefficient than the other. All the exogenous factors must be made uniform before comparing the two and other pest-contollers must be given a chance to deal with the said food distributing company.
- The following appeared in the memo from the Vice President of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities. "according to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year .. 16
- Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 211, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...er too incurred losses why not look for a another pest-contol company altogether?...
^
Line 5, column 256, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...auge the areas that have to be protected , find the right equipments and chemicals...
^^
Line 12, column 38, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... Hence, all in all, there needs to be a undertaken a thorough scrutiny of the t...
^
Line 12, column 74, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
... be a undertaken a thorough scrutiny of the the two comapnys' functioning prior to...
^^^^^^^
Line 12, column 74, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
... be a undertaken a thorough scrutiny of the the two comapnys' functioning prior to...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, however, if, lastly, look, so, thus, in other words, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 16.3942115768 18% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1760.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 366.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8087431694 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37391431897 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63610142636 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.516393442623 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 540.9 705.55239521 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.1582627883 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.6315789474 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2631578947 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.21052631579 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.090272718546 0.218282227539 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0297640477778 0.0743258471296 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0340168519436 0.0701772020484 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0517270495632 0.128457276422 40% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0231519270994 0.0628817314937 37% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.