The argument made by author at Omega University about new procedure that encourage student to evaluate teaching effectiveness and due to professor has begun to raise the grade of student may seem to be logical at first glance. Later author say that dramatic raise in grade Inflated as result Student of Omega University are not getting job as of Alpha University students. The argument may be correct if the premises on which it is based were to be true. However in presenting recommendation the author has made some assumption without providing any support evidence.
University made new approach to evaluate teaching effectiveness by student, so professor has raise grade of student to encourage to student so that overall grade of university has increase by 30 percent. Yes there is fault in the approach made my professor without actual evaluation of student their grade has been increase due to which they lack their actual potential in market but author has made this argument as major issue for not getting job. Author has compare student of Omega University with Alpha University student, as Alpha university student are getting job rather than Omega University. He has not given any another supporting evidence to which support that new producer single and only is major problem of Omega University student problem in getting job. But there may be evidence which so students of Alpha University are more successful in getting job. Author has not provided any supporting evidence that support his argument.
However that approaches may have same flaw so that student are lagging in their career. May be teaching procedure of Omega University may not be lucid than that of Alpha University. In other hand Alpha students may get job due to the University reputation and certificate value. Author has focus only in new procedure of evaluating the professor is making them to increase grade of students so that professor evaluation will be increase. The procedure may be right but it can not by only factor for student not getting job in market. So conclusion drawn by author cannot be true.
In Conclusion, making his recommendation the author has made many assumption. In the absence of any supporting evidence to assumption pointed out, the recommendation is not likely to have predicted results.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 346, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ega University are not getting job as of Alpha University students. The argument ...
^^
Line 1, column 457, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...s on which it is based were to be true. However in presenting recommendation the author...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 685, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...dence to which support that new producer single and only is major problem of Omeg...
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ng evidence that support his argument. However that approaches may have same flaw so t...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 39, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'flawed'.
Suggestion: flawed
... However that approaches may have same flaw so that student are lagging in their ca...
^^^^
Line 4, column 62, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun assumption seems to be countable; consider using: 'many assumptions'.
Suggestion: many assumptions
... his recommendation the author has made many assumption. In the absence of any supporting evide...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, so, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1931.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 378.0 441.139720559 86% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10846560847 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40933352052 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78037293739 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 204.123752495 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.383597883598 0.468620217663 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 643.5 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.2949478131 57.8364921388 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.277777778 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.61111111111 5.70786347227 46% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.271137451356 0.218282227539 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0976421926894 0.0743258471296 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0915446446893 0.0701772020484 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169349734907 0.128457276422 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.090010122466 0.0628817314937 143% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.35 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 98.500998004 65% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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: 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.