AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 5.5
The essay demonstrates good coherence and connectivity. The ideas flow logically from one to another, and the arguments are well connected. Transitions between paragraphs and sentences are generally smooth, helping to maintain the overall coherence of the essay. However, there are a few instances where the connections between ideas could be strengthened for better clarity and coherence.
Word structure: 5.5
The essay uses a variety of vocabulary and effectively conveys the intended meaning. Sentence structures are generally varied and well-formed. There are a few instances where sentence structures could be further diversified to enhance the overall fluency and sophistication of the writing.
Paragraph structure and formation: 6
The essay exhibits strong paragraph structure and formation. Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence that introduces the main idea, followed by supporting details and examples. The paragraphs are well-organized and contribute to the overall coherence of the essay.
Language and Grammar: 6
The essay demonstrates a good command of language and grammar. Sentences are grammatically correct, and there are no major errors that hinder comprehension. The language used is clear and appropriate for the task. Some minor improvements can be made to sentence structures and word choices for enhanced precision and sophistication.
Vocabulary and word expression: 5.5
The essay utilizes a range of vocabulary effectively to convey meaning. There is a sufficient use of domain-specific terms related to the topic. However, there is room for improvement in terms of incorporating more precise and nuanced vocabulary choices to strengthen the expression of ideas.
Overall, the essay presents a well-structured response with coherent arguments and logical reasoning. It effectively critiques the argument by pointing out questionable assumptions and providing alternative perspectives. With some minor refinements in vocabulary and sentence structures, the essay could further enhance its clarity and sophistication. Considering the above assessment, the essay would be rated as 5.5 out of 6.
lucam00 wrote:
Hey everyone!
I would really appreciate some tips, feedback, and a potential score from you guys on my essay.
It was written in test-like conditions, meaning within the 30-minute time limit, and no autocorrection features.
Here is the question and essay:
The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a processor of frozen foods:
“Over time, the costs of processing go down because as organizations learn how to do things better, they become more efficient. In color film processing, for example, the cost of a 3-by-5-inch print fell from 50 cents for five-day service in 1970 to 20 cents for one-day service in 1984. The same principle applies to the processing of food. And since Olympic Foods will soon celebrate its 25th birthday, we can expect that our long experience will enable us to minimize costs and thus maximize profits.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Essay
This annual report sent to stockholders of Olympic Foods argues that over time, costs of processing go down because organizations learn how to do things better. This argument is based on several assumptions, and does not include key factors relevant to the discussion. It assumes that efficiency always increases with company size, and that a standalone example in a different industry, color film processing, can be applied to a company operating in the food sector. This means that the argument is based on flaws, and is unconvincing for the reader.
First, it assumes that efficiency always increases with company size, and provides evidence through showing a lower price, moving from 50 cents in 1970, to 20 cents in 1984 for color prints. However, this is a logical fallacy, since it does not consider other developments such as improvements in quality of the paper and ink, which does not relate to a company’s processing ability, but on other companies in its supply chain. Likewise, there are many examples of large corporations that have failed in the past due to their size, and inability to innovate, meaning that to improve processing capabilities, a company should focus on investing in innovative practices.
Secondly, the argument claims that since a color film processing company improved their processing efficiency over time, this can be applied to Olympic Foods, a company working on frozen food products. Instead, it would have been more convincing to the reader to provide examples of companies in the same industry, as the raw materials required for production, machines used in production, and wholesaler purchasing prices are similar. Furthermore, while it would have been a fair example for a company operating in the color film industry, even then, the argument is not able to claim that the success of a standalone example can be attributed to time alone.
To conclude, the argument made in the annual report for the stakeholders of Olympic Foods is not strong. This has been proven through its insufficient and incorrect correlation of evidence, as it assumes that efficiency always increases with company size, as well as the statement that the success of standalone example from a different industry is only attributed to time. To improve this argument, more information and data needs to be collected and proper conclusions drawn, to not make it weak and open to debate.