This argument is about hiring a famous architect to build a cost effective building to house the students of Claitown University. However, it seems from the author's statement that the University does not have enough funds to construct this kind of building. The author's line of thought is not very convincing. He has not been able to give logics for his reasons. He should have gone in details of the cost of the new building and other costs and the source of this money.
This argument has many loopholes as the author is talking on the basis of his assumptions. First of all, he is talking about commissioning a famous architect, who might charge a heavy amount for his work. It will add a heavy burden on the University's budget. The author has simply skipped this line of reasoning. He has not included this expenditure in the cost. The author is assuming that all the expenditure related to the building will be taken care of by the funds coming from the students' fee, donations coming from the alumni and the amount paid by tourists to visit the new building.
However, all these are just assumptions. The author has not considered the possibility that the tourists might not be interested in visiting a building that is meant for students' housing. Once the students start using the building, tourists will not be attracted towards the building or they might be happy by watching it from outside only. That way there will not be any income from the tourists. Hence, the argument's claim fails to prove that a famous architect's work will generate income for the balancing of costs.
The author has not even explained the source of money to construct the building. The building will receive the funds from students in the form of fee and other funds only when the building will be in use. Hence, this argument holds base only if the architect agrees to take his payment later on and the supplier also supplies the construction material without taking any advance.
Further, the author has talked about attracting new students and the old students who can make donations. However, he has not provided any evidence to support his views neither he has given any example of some other university. It might be possible that the old alumni are more attached to the existing building. Therefore, one cannot accept this conclusion without any proof.
In short, we can say that the author could not support his argument. He has not supplied any evidence to prove his point. He should have studied similar cases of other college buildings that were designed by famous architects and tourists are interested in visiting and paying to watch them. The author should also have emphasized on the detailed explanation of the financial aspects of the building project. A survey of old students and alumni also would have been a good idea as then we will know how interested students are to make donations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 158, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... University. However, it seems from the authors statement that the University does not ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, however, if, so, then, therefore, in short, kind of, talking about, 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: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2418.0 2260.96107784 107% => OK
No of words: 498.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85542168675 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72397222731 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52740339859 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.433734939759 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 736.2 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 4.96107784431 302% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.8194660531 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.3571428571 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7857142857 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.57142857143 5.70786347227 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.67664670659 278% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.183875796637 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0532231784929 0.0743258471296 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0531574348517 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108794680474 0.128457276422 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.051162621434 0.0628817314937 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 14.3799401198 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 48.3550499002 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.61 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.24 8.32208582834 87% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.