Author of the essay made a sweeping conclusion that people actually value education less than they did in the past. Although the author tried to strengthen the argument by introducing several data points as well as statements. However, all of those are very much flawed in my view and the argument needs to be augmented with precise data points and associated statements.
Author starts by mentioning that overall donations to nonprofits increased over last year. With special mention of international aid groups and environmental groups getting larger share of the pie, while educational institutions donations were reduced by 3%. I find inherent weakness in the argument, that we do not know what is the actual educational expenditure required for the whole year. If we have the required figures then we can actually compare whether we are falling short or able to cover the educational expenses. Also we should note one important point is that international development and environmental concerns could also be equally concerning, but we cannot conclusively point out that due to increased donations to other sectors, focus on education has been lost somewhere.
Author argues that "economic indicators suggest consumer spending is higher than average this year". It might indeed be correct but author failed to present the stated economic indicators as well as the benchmark for average spending. It might well be the case that due to inflation average of last year would no longer be the average of current year. Hence, the benchmark also needs to be shifted after adjusting for inflation. If we do that then the picture could be totally different than what has been presented.
Author also argues that only rich and wealthy people are potential donors and their spending on luxury products has risen, hence they could have ample disposable income to donate. Author in this argument assumes that all wealthy people are potential donors, which could be true. However, their spending on luxury products should in no way indicate the amount the disposable income they have. It could be the case that such people have to maintain higher social standard and hence they have to spend huge chunks of money on luxury products. There is no way to determine the wealth of a person and propensity of him/her making a donation.
Finally, the federal report do not discuss about the institutional donations. Author primarily argues over individual donations ignoring a huge aspect of institutional donations. Had author mentioned about the amount breakup of individual and institutional donations we would have more evidence to draw conclusion over the argument. But, keeping in mind the flaws of argument as discussed above, it cannot be conclusively inferred that people value education less than they did in the past.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 455 350
No. of Characters: 2317 1500
No. of Different Words: 220 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.619 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.092 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.699 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 179 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.682 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.656 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.682 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.295 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.538 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.157 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 527, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...able to cover the educational expenses. Also we should note one important point is t...
^^^^
Line 3, column 639, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...t and environmental concerns could also be equally concerning, but we cannot conclusively point out t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 440, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
... shifted after adjusting for inflation. If we do that then the picture could be to...
^^
Line 5, column 498, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style.
Suggestion: from
... the picture could be totally different than what has been presented. Author als...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, hence, however, if, so, then, well, while, as well as, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2381.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 454.0 441.139720559 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24449339207 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61598047577 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78650031772 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.497797356828 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 749.7 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.2192535049 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.227272727 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6363636364 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.31818181818 5.70786347227 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.127079724259 0.218282227539 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0432367199819 0.0743258471296 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0717467561713 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0656210204494 0.128457276422 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0707460916921 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.