The argument advocating the recent move of SuperCorp from Middlesburg to Corporateville states a couple of supportive points that could be deemed true. However, there are gaps in the reasoning and assumptions of the argument that do not provide substantial evidence that indeed SuperCorp made the right decision to move.
To begin with, there is no logical connection between growth in homeowners in Corporateville to its superiority, making the view of the decision to move questionable. The increase could derive from these homeowners being forced out of their previous homes due to construction and having no choice but to move to Corporateville. If the food was better in Corporateville, there could be a flush of homeowners moving in as well. Superiority is subjective and its criteria need to be specifically defined in order to clearly show that Middlesburg is not as optimal to live in.
SuperCorp also surveyed employees about their living preferences. Was the whole population of employees asked? Ten people could have responded and they could all happen to advocate non-urban areas, not holisitically representing SuperCorp and warranting the argument invalid. How many preferred to live in a non-urban area? The survey question could also have bias in steering the employee to choose "non-urban." Hence, the author needs to specify the logistics and content of the survey before presenting this piece as quantitative evidence in the argument.
The argument vaguely claims that Corporateville taxes are cheaper without additional clarification. How much lower does Corporateville tax than does Middlesburg and over what period of time? What taxes are cheaper? Corporateville could tax SuperCorp cheaply compared to how it taxes other companies, which does not make Corporateville cheaper to work. In order to advance this evidence, the argument needs to include specific aspects that make taxes overall cheaper in Corporateville.
After providing evidence that Corporateville taxes are cheaper, the author indicates that it is safer to work. There is no indication in the argument that substantiates the safety of the area. The author needs to logically connect safety with relevant and clear evidence in the argument.
Though the argument could be valid if the points presented are true, there still needs to be specific evidence and holes filled to make the conclusion more substantial. Overall, however, the reasoning is flawed and does not contain smooth logical flow.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK. The survey is asked for living place, not working place. the employees may want working place in a urban area.
argument 3 -- OK
argument 4 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 387 350
No. of Characters: 2056 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.435 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.313 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.032 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.591 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.9 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.409 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.571 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 176, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...tax than does Middlesburg and over what period of time? What taxes are cheaper? Corporateville...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, so, still, well, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2122.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 387.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.48320413437 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20325069085 2.78398813304 115% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503875968992 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 673.2 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.9245047642 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.047619048 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4285714286 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.90476190476 5.70786347227 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => 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: 0.214205692813 0.218282227539 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0634639220904 0.0743258471296 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0580960586854 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103989984901 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0759487683878 0.0628817314937 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.