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.
In this memo, the author argues that his company should contract with Buzzoff for all their pest control services since his company discovered that more food in the warehouse managed by Fly-Away Pest Control Company was destroyed by pest damage. This claim seems convincing at first glance. However, the lack of evidence leads me to question the validity of his argument.
First of all, to evaluate the exact rate of pest damage, we need to know the total amount of two warehouses. Even though $20,000 worth of food in Palm City was destroyed last month, if the whole worth of food in Palm City is much higher than the worth of food in Wintervale, it may mean a lower rate of destroyed food. Specifically, if the warehouse in Palm City stores $400,000 of food and the warehouse in Wintervale stores only $100,000 of food, this presents that the food in the warehouse in Wintervale suffered a two-fold rate of pest damage last month. Therefore, to bolster his opinion, the author should provide the total amount of food in the two warehouses.
Second, in this memo, the author uses limited data for one month to claim his opinion. However, one month might be not enough period to evaluate the performance of Fly-Away Pest Control Company. In many cases, the new contractor requires some adaptation periods to manage the new facility. If Fly-Away Pest Control Company has more time to stabilize their service to prevent pests in the warehouse, they may show more improved performance in their job. To support his argument, the author should collect more long-term data about the two company's pest damage records.
In addition, the author does not provide any information about the environment like climate, age of facilities, and kinds of food of the two warehouses. These make the argument weak critically since these factors might affect the rate of pest damage in the warehouse. For instance, generally, air temperature is a crucial factor for pest abundance in warehouses. If the average temperature of Palm City is much higher than the Wintervale, the food could be damaged by pests more frequently. Furthermore, if the warehouse in Palm City is older than the warehouse in Wintervale and the facilities do not include state-of-art technology, these also can affect pest damage. Therefore, the author should show evidence about the environmental factors of two warehouses to strengthen his claim.
Lastly, we can not check the exact price of pest control services by the two companies in this argument. Even if the Fly-Away Pest Control Company shows more pest damage in the warehouse than Buzzoff, if the price of service of them is much lower than the Buzzoff, we may save more money by contracting with Fly-Away Pest Control Company. To clear these flaws, the author should provide precise information about the service price of the two companies.
In conclusion, this memo has many unconvincing assumptions and has not enough specific evidence. To strengthen the argument, the author should present more evidence like the exact extent of the food in the two warehouses, the environmental information of the warehouses, and the price of service of the two companies.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-18 | Technoblade | 63 | view |
| 2023-05-29 | abidek001 | 63 | view |
| 2023-03-02 | 宋致遠 | 82 | view |
| 2023-02-17 | HSNDEK | 68 | view |
| 2022-12-06 | abhikhanna | 70 | view |
- 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 w 79
- The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex to its manager 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 t 58
- The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing During the past year Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on the job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant where the work shifts are one hour shorter than our 58
- According to a recent report cheating among college and university students is on the rise However Groveton College has successfully reduced student cheating by adopting an honor code which calls for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeav 58
- The following appeared in a memo to the board of the Grandview Symphony The city of Grandview has provided annual funding for the Grandview Symphony since the symphony s inception ten years ago Last year the symphony hired an internationally known conduct 53
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 527 350
No. of Characters: 2583 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.791 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.901 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.573 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 180 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 139 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.913 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.86 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.783 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.344 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.55 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, may, second, so, then, therefore, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, first of all, in many cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 13.6137724551 22% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 81.0 55.5748502994 146% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2655.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 527.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03795066414 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79129216042 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69302282139 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.38330170778 0.468620217663 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 834.3 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.4341517441 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.434782609 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9130434783 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.52173913043 5.70786347227 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
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: 0.36528070495 0.218282227539 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105414041195 0.0743258471296 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100199437737 0.0701772020484 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.212209590548 0.128457276422 165% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.093358221444 0.0628817314937 148% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.87 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.