The argument claims that improving health recreation facilities will attract new student and serve the need of current student body. Hence, making the talented ones enroll at Tusk. The stated conclusion is based on assumptions in which no clear evidence is stated. Therefore, the argument is flawed.
Firstly, the writer readily assumes that building a new recreational facility will attract new student doubling enrollment over the next ten years while neglecting other factors like interests that students consider while choosing a school. Students are of different kinds, and so their priorities and interests, some students will be more interested in arts, drama, academics etc, and which might be a main factor to consider while applying for a university. Clearly, the writer failed to consider other factors, pivoting her consideration solely on the new recreational facility. The argument would have been more lucid if the writer had explicitly stated that new recreational facility would attract students that are interested in recreation.
Secondly, the argument claims that the facilities will become inadequate due to higher percentage of commuter students enrolled. Again, the writer failed to state the interest of the new enrollee in the recreational facility, so much the commuter students might not be enlightened to using recreational facilities, making them not to acknowledge its importance which might consequentially result to the under-utilization of these facilities. For example, enrolling students with jobs, families, and other great responsibility, they have loads of academic work to do couple with their respective responsibilities, so how are they expected to make use of the facilities. This writer should have stated that students would be enlightened and measures would taken to make the use of the facilities mandatory for all students.
In addition, the writer made another flaw by assuming that students will find it more advantageous to make use of facilities on campus simply because of the increased cost of recreation club membership. The writer doesn’t tell the actual difference in cost so we can evaluate if it worth going for, because the community facility might be much more better, in terms of quality and credibility. Furthermore, the community recreational facility will attract people of higher caliber than that of the school which may be a good reason for students to prefer that over that of the school.
Finally, the argument concludes that an attractive new recreation centre would make students with athletic gift enroll at Tusk. This assumption could be termed invalid because Tusk University in this argument is not stated as a sport oriented University. Hence, their criteria for enrollment cannot be on the basis of gymnastic talent, even if a hundred of talented students applied, none of these would be enrolled.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above reasons and its assumptions would have been valid if the writer had explicitly stated some grounded facts to substantiate her argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 755, Rule ID: PRP_PAST_PART[2]
Message: Did you mean 'have taken' or 'take'?
Suggestion: have taken; take
...would be enlightened and measures would taken to make the use of the facilities manda...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 345, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'better' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: better
...se the community facility might be much more better, in terms of quality and credibility. F...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'therefore', 'while', 'for example', 'in addition', 'in conclusion', 'in fact']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.256653992395 0.25644967241 100% => OK
Verbs: 0.161596958175 0.15541462614 104% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0912547528517 0.0836205057962 109% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0437262357414 0.0520304965353 84% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0247148288973 0.0272364105082 91% => OK
Prepositions: 0.131178707224 0.125424944231 105% => OK
Participles: 0.0570342205323 0.0416121511921 137% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.97024054848 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0247148288973 0.026700313972 93% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.106463878327 0.113004496875 94% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.041825095057 0.0255425247493 164% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0114068441065 0.0127820249294 89% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3081.0 2731.13054187 113% => OK
No of words: 478.0 446.07635468 107% => OK
Chars per words: 6.44560669456 6.12365571057 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.57801047555 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.418410041841 0.378187486979 111% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.322175732218 0.287650121315 112% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.267782426778 0.208842608468 128% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.15690376569 0.135150697306 116% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97024054848 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 207.018472906 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476987447699 0.469332199767 102% => OK
Word variations: 54.4461056501 52.1807786196 104% => OK
How many sentences: 19.0 20.039408867 95% => OK
Sentence length: 25.1578947368 23.2022227129 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.6644285326 57.7814097925 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 162.157894737 141.986410481 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1578947368 23.2022227129 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.842105263158 0.724660767414 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 57.3754679586 51.9672348444 110% => OK
Elegance: 1.93388429752 1.8405768891 105% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.461826046194 0.441005458295 105% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.124629718658 0.135418324435 92% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0741933206167 0.0829849096947 89% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.60558930729 0.58762219726 103% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.137883597478 0.147661913831 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.187434533568 0.193483328276 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0919129327476 0.0970749176394 95% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.344938796852 0.42659136922 81% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.127333351203 0.0774707102158 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.277171274203 0.312017818177 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0858619262544 0.0698173142475 123% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.33743842365 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 13.0 6.46551724138 201% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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 to cover all aspects.