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 economic 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.
Grounding on the poll of 200 charitable organizations and the economic indicators, supposing that there is a decrease in donations for educational field, and then synthesizing the hypothesis that people tends to donate less to educational institutions even if they get higher income, the author accordingly suggests that people put less emphasis on education than before.
Citing the poll conducted among 200 different charitable organizations, the author noticed a decrease in the donation to the educational ones. Comparing to the increase in donation of the other fields, the author thus assumes that people take education less seriously. However, the argument did not provide the information of how the poll was conducted, who responded to the poll and why these 200 organizations were chose. Perhaps there are another 200 educational charitable organizations not involved in this poll which actually showed an increased donation. Or maybe last year, the society was confronted an environmental crisis and thus draw the attention of the public to donate. There is also a good chance that other countries encounter natural disasters or suffer from endemic disease, and therefore result in shortages of resources which require helps from international aid groups. Since we only know the percentages instead of hard numbers, it is possible that the real amount of the educational donation actually surpass the amount of others. The author should rule out the above possibilities to make the statement more convincing.
Moreover, the author’s though is that higher incomes will translate into more donations. This may well be, but what if people just want to spend their increased earning on recreational activities as a reward of hard working? People’s habits of making donation should be set forth before establishing this causal relationship. Otherwise, the increased income is not a reliable prognostic factor at all. In addition, an economic indicator of a single year cannot be representative of the overall income status of the people. What if people in fact work hard to make ends meet in the other years? A rare wage increase and a decrease in the donation in education may simply be a coincidence. The author fails to justifiably conclude that people place less importance on education is the cause of lower educational donation.
In sum, drawing a conclusion that people place less value on education based on several unwarranted assumptions seems to be unpersuasive as it stands.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 394 350
No. of Characters: 2062 1500
No. of Different Words: 215 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.455 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.234 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.964 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.889 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.695 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.469 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 418, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'chosen'.
Suggestion: chosen
...ll and why these 200 organizations were chose. Perhaps there are another 200 educatio...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, actually, also, but, however, if, may, moreover, so, then, therefore, thus, well, in addition, in fact, in short
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2111.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 394.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3578680203 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45527027702 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03815163861 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553299492386 0.468620217663 118% => OK
syllable_count: 672.3 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.5305272373 57.8364921388 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.277777778 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8888888889 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.94444444444 5.70786347227 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => 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: 0.316706066741 0.218282227539 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0905956966235 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0682998727366 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169588284151 0.128457276422 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0999672271677 0.0628817314937 159% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.73 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.5 12.3882235529 133% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.