"Tusk University should build a new recreational facility, both to attract new students and to better serve the needs of our current student body. Tusk projects that enrollment will double over the next 10 years, based on current trends. The new student body is expected to reflect a much higher percentage of commuter students that we currently enroll. This will make the existing facilities inadequate. Moreover, the cost of health and recreation club membership in our community has increased rapidly in recent years. Thus, students will find it much more advantageous to make use of the facilities on campus. Finally, an attractive new recreation center would make prospective students, especially athletically gifted ones, more likely to enroll at Tusk."
Write a response that examines this argument's unstated assumptions. Make sure you explain how this argument depends on those assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions are wrong.
The author concludes that building a new recreational facility at Tusk University will attract new students and better serve the needs of the current student body. This statement seems logical at first glance, but she relies on assumptions for which have no clear evidence and uses terms that lack definition.
First, the author assumes that because of the increase in students projected to attend Tusk University, this will make existing structures inadequate for students to use. She also insinuates that building a new recreational facility will attract more students to the university. There is no evidence proving that existing structures on campus are inadequate of providing for the students recreational needs. Research and evaluations on existing facilities at Tusk University could provide some clarity on whether or not renovations or new projects should be planned. It may not be wrong to say that building a new recreational facility will attract more students, especially athletically gifted ones, to Tusk, but this facility will not likely be the deciding factor of which college to attend for most students. Incoming students look at a variety of factors when deciding which university is right for him/her, like which majors are offered, campus life, and sports teams. Having a recreational facility would be an added bonus, but would likely not sway a student’s decision one way or the other.
The author also assumes that having an on campus recreational facility would be more convenient for students because of rising membership prices in the surrounding areas. This may be true for some, but if there will be a higher percentage of commuter students in the following years, an on-campus recreational facility may prove inconvenient. Students who commute to school may choose a recreational facility closer to where he or she lives, rather than coming back to campus to use the facility. The increasing prices may or may not affect a student’s decision to use an on-campus versus off-campus facility, when the cost of convenience is heavily weighed.
This argument can be strengthened dramatically if supporting evidence for each of these assumptions was stated. Figuring out why the student enrollment is projected to double, and why students choose to attend Tusk University will help the author make her point. Sending a survey to students of major deciding factors when choosing a university that is right for them would also be helpful. A survey could also improve the author’s claims about the existing facilities, and whether or not they are adequate for each student’s wants and needs. The author fails to show evidence of increasing prices of recreational club memberships in the surrounding areas, which takes away from the credibility of her statements.
The author claims that building the new recreational facility at Tusk University would both attract new students and better serve the needs of the current student body. This claim may prove true, but the author fails to provide support to prove this to be true. To support the current conclusion, the author must find out why students choose Tusk University, and provide conclusive evidence that this new facility will, in fact, attract new students and better serve the needs of the current student body.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 506, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...niversity could provide some clarity on whether or not renovations or new projects should be p...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1019, Rule ID: ADDED_BONUS[1]
Message: This phrase might be redundant. Use simply 'bonus'.
Suggestion: bonus
...ing a recreational facility would be an added bonus, but would likely not sway a student&ap...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 480, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...aims about the existing facilities, and whether or not they are adequate for each student&apos...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 343, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to tusk'
Suggestion: To tusk
...uthor must find out why students choose Tusk University, and provide conclusive evid...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, look, may, so, then, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.9520958084 193% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2798.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 529.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28922495274 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79583152331 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87763956389 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.40831758034 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 865.8 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 1.67365269461 538% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.3089539378 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.238095238 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1904761905 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.38095238095 5.70786347227 42% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.409198733094 0.218282227539 187% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.161855613509 0.0743258471296 218% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.174608931224 0.0701772020484 249% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.286026342063 0.128457276422 223% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.130786327513 0.0628817314937 208% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.3799401198 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.