The chairperson of Saluda's school board recommends that Mr. Charles Schade should be hired for planning and directing music education for the entire school system of Saluda. The chairperson supports his recommendation by claiming that Mr. Charles Schade has been a successful music director at Steel City High School for the past 5 years and the arguer provides two facts as evidence in support of this claim. Firstly, the Steel City High School band has won three regional competitions in the past five years. Secondly, it has been seen that there is an immense improvement in the quality of music rehearsal facilities and musical instruments at the Steel City High School in the past five years. Despite the evidence provided, the argument is flawed in several respects and fails to convince the reader that Mr. Charles Schade would be the best choice for planning and directing the general music education programs for the entire Saluda school system.
The arguer should have eliminated other possibilities which could have been instrumental in leading to the school band's success in the regional competitions. It is likely that the children who are a part of the school band are extremely talented and they would have been able to win the competitions even if Mr. Charles Schade was not their music director. On the other hand, it is possible that the school band had been groomed by Mr. Charles Schade's predecessor and he is the one who would be actually responsible for this success. This probability increases due to the absence of a mention of the exact time period in which the school band had won these competitions. If they had won them in the beginning of Mr. Charles Schade's tenure, then it would mean that Mr. Charles Schade probably contributed very little to their success. The absence of such evidence also raises the doubt that the school band has probably not won any major competitions during the latter part of Mr. Charles Schade's tenure which would go against his capability and competence as a music director.
The marked improvement in the music rehearsal facilities and musical instruments cannot be linked to Mr. Charles Schade alone. It is likely that these improvements were made possible due to the sustained efforts of the school administrative council or some other department of the school. Therefore, there is a probability that someone else was responsible for initiating the release of funds that resulted in the procurement of good quality musical instruments and the provision of improved music rehearsal facilities. The argument should have made a clear reference to the role that Mr. Charles Schade had played in providing these enhanced facilities to the school. In the absence of such concrete evidence, the second fact presented by the arguer does not substantiate his claim related to the competence of Mr. Charles Schade.
Even if we assume that Mr. Charles Schade had indeed been successful as the music director of the Steel City High School, it is not necessary that he is competent enough to handle the music education program for the entire school system of Saluda. This is because the latter assignment would demand skills that could be different from those required for the music director of a high school. The argument could have been substantiated to an extent if the arguer had provided evidence that proved the competence of Mr. Charles Schade beyond doubt. In its present form, the given argument is largely unconvincing due to lack of sufficient evidence in support of the recommendation made.
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.31715210356 0.25644967241 124% => OK
Verbs: 0.148867313916 0.15541462614 96% => OK
Adjectives: 0.084142394822 0.0836205057962 101% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0355987055016 0.0520304965353 68% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0291262135922 0.0272364105082 107% => OK
Prepositions: 0.12783171521 0.125424944231 102% => OK
Participles: 0.0550161812298 0.0416121511921 132% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.71595178438 2.79052419416 97% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0210355987055 0.026700313972 79% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.126213592233 0.113004496875 112% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0210355987055 0.0255425247493 82% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0129449838188 0.0127820249294 101% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3554.0 2731.13054187 130% => OK
No of words: 588.0 446.07635468 132% => OK
Chars per words: 6.04421768707 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9242980521 4.57801047555 108% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.386054421769 0.378187486979 102% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.27380952381 0.287650121315 95% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.181972789116 0.208842608468 87% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.117346938776 0.135150697306 87% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71595178438 2.79052419416 97% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 207.018472906 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.396258503401 0.469332199767 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 47.0432772602 52.1807786196 90% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 29.4 23.2022227129 127% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.1756876031 57.7814097925 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 177.7 141.986410481 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.4 23.2022227129 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.6 0.724660767414 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 56.780952381 51.9672348444 109% => OK
Elegance: 2.34090909091 1.8405768891 127% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.738166047703 0.441005458295 167% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.179759874723 0.135418324435 133% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0811817713316 0.0829849096947 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.653469825462 0.58762219726 111% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.0729132894362 0.147661913831 49% => Sentences are similar to each other in a paragraph.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.39089229909 0.193483328276 202% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0957566104082 0.0970749176394 99% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.641895052844 0.42659136922 150% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0201891792331 0.0774707102158 26% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.603676765924 0.312017818177 193% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0922032090098 0.0698173142475 132% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.33743842365 180% => 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: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => 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.