Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by 30 percent. Potential employers, looking at this dramatic rise in grades, believe that grades at Omega are inflated and do not accurately reflect student achievement; as a result, Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University. To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should terminate student evaluation of professors.
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.
The claim offered seems to be eloquent at first glance, but on close examination, it has some logical fallacies which lead to a wrong judgement to the evaluation program of faculties in Omega University. This essay is going to list all the defects the claim has and give some possible ways for the university to better prove their students’ ability.
Firstly, potential employers have doubts on the real achievement of students in Omega University because of the unusual rise in grades after the implementation of evaluation procedure of professors. It is possible that Omega University attracted top students from high school at the cost of higher scholars. Therefore, the higher grades were reasonable because top students performed better. So detailed data regarding the admission of students in Omega University should be collected to give the employers a comprehensive knowledge about the students from the beginning.
Secondly, the claim only presented a procedure of evaluating professors, what if there were some other programs conducting at the same period, such as additional courses for improving the performance of students. The university should give a list on all the programs the college implemented fifteen years ago to make the employers fully understand the policy and better evaluate the students in a more comprehensive way.
Finally, potential employers evaluate students’ abilities only through their grades, which are easily to draw wrong judgements about students. For example, some students are poor with their grades, but they have a better performance when doing things they are truly interested with, such as software programming. This kind of students tend to be self-motivated and focus more on crafting their skills instead of boring grades. If enterprises only judge students by their grades, they are more likely to miss the potential gurus in some specific areas. Hence, employers is encouraged to make evaluation system from different aspects, including grades, practical ability and etc. Also, some contests such as debates and programming can be arranged to give employers a chance to know the students in a different way.
In sum, more efforts should be made, instead of terminating the evaluation program in a ruthless way, to let the employers better evaluate the students in Omega University. In this way, employers may discard their biased evaluation which is only derived from the abnormal increase of students’ grades in the past fifteen years.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 675, Rule ID: AND_ETC[1]
Message: Use simply 'etc.'.
Suggestion: etc.
...ts, including grades, practical ability and etc. Also, some contests such as debates and...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 800, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a different way" with adverb for "different"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...employers a chance to know the students in a different way. In sum, more efforts should be made...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 84, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a ruthless way" with adverb for "ruthless"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...d of terminating the evaluation program in a ruthless way, to let the employers better evaluate t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'therefore', 'for example', 'kind of', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.270022883295 0.25644967241 105% => OK
Verbs: 0.144164759725 0.15541462614 93% => OK
Adjectives: 0.105263157895 0.0836205057962 126% => OK
Adverbs: 0.045766590389 0.0520304965353 88% => OK
Pronouns: 0.025171624714 0.0272364105082 92% => OK
Prepositions: 0.12356979405 0.125424944231 99% => OK
Participles: 0.0434782608696 0.0416121511921 104% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.96153744052 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0320366132723 0.026700313972 120% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.109839816934 0.113004496875 97% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0114416475973 0.0255425247493 45% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0114416475973 0.0127820249294 90% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2511.0 2731.13054187 92% => OK
No of words: 391.0 446.07635468 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.42199488491 6.12365571057 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.57801047555 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.409207161125 0.378187486979 108% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.342710997442 0.287650121315 119% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.271099744246 0.208842608468 130% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.186700767263 0.135150697306 138% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96153744052 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 207.018472906 92% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.488491048593 0.469332199767 104% => OK
Word variations: 52.6540754876 52.1807786196 101% => OK
How many sentences: 16.0 20.039408867 80% => OK
Sentence length: 24.4375 23.2022227129 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.6571706319 57.7814097925 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 156.9375 141.986410481 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4375 23.2022227129 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.0 0.724660767414 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 58.7085997442 51.9672348444 113% => OK
Elegance: 2.03191489362 1.8405768891 110% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.394124930158 0.441005458295 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.137898837303 0.135418324435 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0621937948123 0.0829849096947 75% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.630698940252 0.58762219726 107% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.153299354441 0.147661913831 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.165748776545 0.193483328276 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0500189682765 0.0970749176394 52% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.378466532972 0.42659136922 89% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0987893868714 0.0774707102158 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.256701453997 0.312017818177 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0284363590117 0.0698173142475 41% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 13.0 14.657635468 89% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
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.