According to a new report from the federal government, overall donations of money to nonprofit groups increased last year. Most notably, donations to international aid groupsincreased by 30 percent, followed by donations to environmental groups, which increased by 23 percent. In contrast, donations to educational institutions did not fare so well, actually decreasing by 3 percent. All the major economic indicators suggest that consumer spending is higher than average this year. In particular, spending has risen considerably for luxury items, such as high-end automobiles, electronics, and fashion, showing that potential donors have ample disposable income. Therefore, the clearest explanation for the decline in donations to educational institutions is that people actually value education less than they did in the past.
In the argument presented, it is assumed that consumer spending led to the decline in donations to educational institutions. The author also assumes that people do not value education as much as they did in the past and so have led to less donation. Although the argument when viewed superficially seem cogent, when thought of critically, it reveals some flaws.
First of all, since the report states that spending is higher than average in the year in question, it is reasonable to think that the decline will not only be realized in education but in other nonprofit groups. It is stated that donations to nonprofit groups like international aid increased by thirty percent while there was a twenty-three percent increase in environmental groups. This reveals one flaw that makes the argument illogical.
In support of the above, the reported three percent decrease does not seem like a significant decrease. Anybody will expect a much larger percentage decrease to agree that the decline was something to worry about. Besides, the three percent decrease could have been a coincidence and not a direct effect from overspending by donors.
Also, the donors may have noticed that the other nonprofit groups needed the donations than the educational institutions. It is possible that the donations to the educational institutions from the previous years was enough for the running of the institutions. In short, the demand might have been weighed to see the group that needed it the most. It is reasonable to appropriate funds to groups that are in need than one that is faring well.
Additionally, the part that states that people value education less than they did in the past, was not made lucid enough. The relation of spending on luxury items as an economic indicator to how people value education, is not logical. Spending on items of that sort directly and indirectly boosts the economy one way or the other but does not point out a reduction in value of education.
To conclude, judging how people value education due to a somewhat insignificant decrease in donation does not make a firm argument. If the decrease was realized in all the groups, it would be reasonable to say that the spending made a huge effect. Aside that, if the decrease in the donation to the educational institution was a much larger decrease, it would have been something to brood about. A better report that gives vivid information about the reduction in value for education will also make the argument stronger.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- OK
argument 4 -- OK
--------------------
other arguments like:
Perhaps people's perception is that educational institutions are more likely than the other types to squander or misuse donated money;
or perhaps most donors are simply more interested in advocating religions or environmental protection than in subsidizing education.
-----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 417 350
No. of Characters: 2036 1500
No. of Different Words: 182 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.519 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.882 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.72 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 143 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 106 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.85 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.606 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.312 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.589 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.074 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, if, may, so, well, while, in short, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2086.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 417.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.00239808153 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5189133491 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.802274994 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.458033573141 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 660.6 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.2737509743 57.8364921388 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 104.3 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.85 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.75 5.70786347227 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.179422349039 0.218282227539 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0591883468888 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0783630867427 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100102917472 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0866191826488 0.0628817314937 138% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.0 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.