According to an independent poll of 200 charitable organizations, overall donations of money to nonprofit groups increased last year, but educational institutions did not fare as well as other organizations. Donations to international aid groups increased the most (30 percent), followed by donations to environmental groups (23 percent), whereas donations to educational institutions actually decreased slightly (3 percent). Meanwhile, all of the major economical indicators suggest that consumer spending is higher than average this year, 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.
The author claims that people value education less than they did in the past because donations to educational institutions decreased slightly while donations to other groups are increased and base on fact that potential donors have ample disposable income. He or she offers an interesting argument, but it suffers from some logical flaws and gaps in evidence. While connections suggested are reasonable, there are many other possible scenarios that should discourage us concluding that people do not value education as they did in the past.
To begin with, consider the independent poll of 200 charitable organizations. The author mentions that poll results decrease in donations to educational institutions and increase in donations to other groups such as international aid groups, environmental groups. Yet there is no reason to believe that 200 charitable organizations explain the whole. The organizations that participate to independent polls could be biased. The organizations actually might be where most of donors are for environmental or international aid groups originally. There might be charitable organization which is omitted and where primary donations are for educational institutions. Therefore without confirmation that 200 charitable organizations can successfully explain the whole, or access to independent poll of all organizations, we cannot conclude whether people regard education important or not comparing to the past.
Though, let us assume that the organizations can be generalized successfully. Then we are prompted to ask whether the decrease in donations to educational groups really means that people do not consider education as important matters or not. The author assumes that decrease in donations implies decrease in people's appreciation. However there are many factors that can affect the amount of donations. For example, people may not donate a lot just because of lack of educational group's marketing. Or there might be scandal such as hiding donation among educational groups that discourage the donors donating. Finally people may think that educational does not need many donation because they think providing education does not require lots of fund. Likewise it is hasty to determine that people do not value education less because there are many other possible scenarios that can explain donation's decline.
Finally, the author presents comparison to donations occurred last year as evidence to his or her claim. However comparison to only last year could be misleading. What if donations to educational groups was unexceptionally large in last year? For example, rich celebrity such as Bill Gates, Lebron James, etc might donate tremendous bills to educational groups last year. General people might donate more than last year to educations. We need not only last year record but more prolonged record to compare properly.
To sum, the author's assumption that people consider education less significantly as last year is logically flawed based on the above mentioned reason, To strengthen his or her argument, the author should closely examine all the conditions and possible factors. In conclusion, the author's argument reflects unsupported claims without clear reasons or evidence.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 12 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 490 350
No. of Characters: 2702 1500
No. of Different Words: 220 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.705 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.514 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.996 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 213 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 162 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 125 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 92 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.846 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.681 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.731 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.302 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.512 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.168 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 467, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'most of', you should use 'the' ('most of the donors') or simply say ''most donors''.
Suggestion: most of the donors; most donors
...e organizations actually might be where most of donors are for environmental or international ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 662, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...tions are for educational institutions. Therefore without confirmation that 200 charitabl...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Though” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ortant or not comparing to the past. Though, let us assume that the organizations c...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 331, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...plies decrease in peoples appreciation. However there are many factors that can affect ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 610, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...ps that discourage the donors donating. Finally people may think that educational does ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 666, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun donation seems to be countable; consider using: 'many donations'.
Suggestion: many donations
...ay think that educational does not need many donation because they think providing education ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 750, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Likewise,
...ducation does not require lots of fund. Likewise it is hasty to determine that people do...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 106, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...t year as evidence to his or her claim. However comparison to only last year could be m...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 13, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ord to compare properly. To sum, the authors assumption that people consider educati...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 281, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nd possible factors. In conclusion, the authors argument reflects unsupported claims wi...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, however, if, likewise, may, really, so, then, therefore, while, for example, in conclusion, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2755.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 490.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.62244897959 5.12650576532 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70488508055 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05077741166 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463265306122 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 869.4 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 58.0199032367 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.961538462 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8461538462 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.30769230769 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.395380920181 0.218282227539 181% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.1172865402 0.0743258471296 158% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0767989868068 0.0701772020484 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.211349663419 0.128457276422 165% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.116677459032 0.0628817314937 186% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 48.3550499002 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.32 12.5979740519 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => 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
---------------------
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.