Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledge that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings, so it can be expected that tourists will want to visit this new building. The income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. Furthermore, such a building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. And even though such a building will be much larger than our current need for student housing, part of the building can be used as office space
This argument is about hiring a famous architect to build a cost effective building to house the students of Claitown University. However, it seems from the author's statement that the University does not have enough funds to construct this kind of building. The author's line of thought is not very convincing. He has not been able to give logics for his reasons. He should have gone in details of the cost of the new building and other costs and the source of this money.
This argument has many loopholes as the author is talking on the basis of his assumptions. First of all, he is talking about commissioning a famous architect, who might charge a heavy amount for his work. It will add a heavy burden on the University's budget. The author has simply skipped this line of reasoning. He has not included this expenditure in the cost. The author is assuming that all the expenditure related to the building will be taken care of by the funds coming from the students' fee, donations coming from the alumni and the amount paid by tourists to visit the new building.
However, all these are just assumptions. The author has not considered the possibility that the tourists might not be interested in visiting a building that is meant for students' housing. Once the students start using the building, tourists will not be attracted towards the building or they might be happy by watching it from outside only. That way there will not be any income from the tourists. Hence, the argument's claim fails to prove that a famous architect's work will generate income for the balancing of costs.
The author has not even explained the source of money to construct the building. The building will receive the funds from students in the form of fee and other funds only when the building will be in use. Hence, this argument holds base only if the architect agrees to take his payment later on and the supplier also supplies the construction material without taking any advance.
Further, the author has talked about attracting new students and the old students who can make donations. However, he has not provided any evidence to support his views neither he has given any example of some other university. It might be possible that the old alumni are more attached to the existing building. Therefore, one cannot accept this conclusion without any proof.
In short, we can say that the author could not support his argument. He has not supplied any evidence to prove his point. He should have studied similar cases of other college buildings that were designed by famous architects and tourists are interested in visiting and paying to watch them. The author should also have emphasized on the detailed explanation of the financial aspects of the building project. A survey of old students and alumni also would have been a good idea as then we will know how interested students are to make donations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 158, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... University. However, it seems from the authors statement that the University does not ...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'in short', 'kind of', 'talking about', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.235621521336 0.25644967241 92% => OK
Verbs: 0.179962894249 0.15541462614 116% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0575139146568 0.0836205057962 69% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0593692022263 0.0520304965353 114% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0426716141002 0.0272364105082 157% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.113172541744 0.125424944231 90% => OK
Participles: 0.0649350649351 0.0416121511921 156% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.52740339859 2.79052419416 91% => OK
Infinitives: 0.025974025974 0.026700313972 97% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.137291280148 0.113004496875 121% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0371057513915 0.0255425247493 145% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0111317254174 0.0127820249294 87% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2910.0 2731.13054187 107% => OK
No of words: 498.0 446.07635468 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.84337349398 6.12365571057 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72397222731 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.33734939759 0.378187486979 89% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.244979919679 0.287650121315 85% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.198795180723 0.208842608468 95% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0963855421687 0.135150697306 71% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52740339859 2.79052419416 91% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 207.018472906 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.433734939759 0.469332199767 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 49.2156956178 52.1807786196 94% => OK
How many sentences: 28.0 20.039408867 140% => OK
Sentence length: 17.7857142857 23.2022227129 77% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.8194660531 57.7814097925 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.928571429 141.986410481 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7857142857 23.2022227129 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.428571428571 0.724660767414 59% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 42.2837062536 51.9672348444 81% => OK
Elegance: 1.46710526316 1.8405768891 80% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.38309434094 0.441005458295 87% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.112069221084 0.135418324435 83% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0808812629107 0.0829849096947 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.511728865564 0.58762219726 87% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.165301967528 0.147661913831 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.142522499643 0.193483328276 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0785211244644 0.0970749176394 81% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.484898476115 0.42659136922 114% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0795159705348 0.0774707102158 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.270886702869 0.312017818177 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0647011781129 0.0698173142475 93% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.82512315271 269% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 9.0 2.82389162562 319% => OK
Total topic words: 23.0 14.657635468 157% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
More arguments wanted.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.