"Because the future will be dominated by technology, we must make four years of computer programming mandatory for all high school students. If our students take these classes, they’ll all be able to get high-paying programming jobs and lead fulfilling lives because software engineers and data scientists have the best job prospects and salaries. Therefore, we must educate our students so they can secure these kinds of jobs. Even if they pursue other careers, programming will still benefit them, given that all industries are becoming more technological."
The author of the argument contends that students should be educated at computer programming while in high school, because all industries are becoming more technological and they would need people deeply adapted in technology. He or she provides the following as evidence to support his or her claims: firstly, that the future will be dominated by technology and therefore mandatory four year classes should be implemented, secondly that software engineers and data scientists are always in demand. The reasoning of the argument is totally flawed, as it is based upon unsubstantiated assumptions.
Firstly, the author fails to convince us that the four years of mandatory computer programming classes are enough for high school students to be trained. Perhaps, the specific aspect is too short, and more years should be issued, or even too big and two or three years of classes are enough. He or she should have presented more accurate data and details, such as surveys and statistics conducted by renowned universities, in order for the readers to accept the effectiveness and validity of his or her claims.
Secondly, the fact that students will complete these courses does not necessary approve that they will secure high-paying programming jobs and fulfilling lives as mentioned. That represents more a positive correlation rather than a casual connection. The programming jobs are likely not be high paying, because there will be a big number of people with the same programming capabilities, something that would inevitably lead to lower salaries. The spokesperson should have quoted specific results and aspects, for instance about the real-market conditions and the numbers of people and the potential jobs, in order for him or her to ensure the public about his or her claims.
In addition, it is too hastily presented that education is the only factor that will help students to secure the aforementioned high-tech jobs. Perhaps, other measures should be implemented, for instance more funding for the creating of programming laboratories and hubs in the city centers nationwide. The author of the argument should have cited that among all other measures available, education is the most important contributor for students to secure hich-paying programming jobs.
Finally, the fact that every business is directly connected to technological advancements, as presented little does to ensure the audience about its substantiation. The spokesperson should have displayed different jobs and the way they are contigent upon technology. In particular, although law firms businesses are generally related to technology, it is not clear how much and what kind of interaction exists since lawyers are mainly concerned about their speech and persuasive capabilities.
The argument is weak since neither is the conclusion sound, nor is the suggestion legitimate. Had there been substantial evidence, perhaps, the argument would have sounded more credible, but in its absence, it sounds indefensible.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 191, Rule ID: MORE_A_JJ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'a more positive'?
Suggestion: a more positive
...ing lives as mentioned. That represents more a positive correlation rather than a casual connec...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, for instance, in addition, in particular, kind of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 26.0 11.1786427146 233% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2559.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 465.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50322580645 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64369019777 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03332856876 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505376344086 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 782.1 705.55239521 111% => 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: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => 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: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.1925224486 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.166666667 119.503703932 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8333333333 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 5.70786347227 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.335087638911 0.218282227539 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.099012219374 0.0743258471296 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.102942180928 0.0701772020484 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15900925756 0.128457276422 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.105248598803 0.0628817314937 167% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 14.3799401198 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.92 12.5979740519 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.22 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 98.500998004 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.