Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledge that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings, so it can be expected that tourists will want to visit this new building. The income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. Furthermore, such a building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. And even though such a building will be much larger than our current need for student housing, part of the building can be used as office space.
The above argument is based on a number of fallible assumptions and unverified claims. The stated option of commissioning a famous architect may not be the only option available. Infact, it may not be even viable to hire such an achitect. Taken as a whole, these unstated claims render the argument fully suspect.
To begin with, the argument assumes that a new building modelled by the famous architect is the best solution to arrive at a consensus between providing afforadable housing and funding the construction of it. However, since the argument fails to ellucidate the pros and cons of alternative options, it appears that the latter were not investigated to full measure. For instance, it might have been a more reasonable option to construct a building by raising money from private donations from patrons, philathropic organisations who fund academic institutions, clubs or allumni associations of the University, or even through fee increments from students and collaboration from faculty members. Since, the money is to be utilized for a genuine reason, students and the other mentioned sources would probably not hesitate to offer the required fund. Hiring a famous architect and then creating a structure that can attract tourists to the the extent that they will to pay in order to visit it, will be expensive. It would be draining on the universities budget that could have been otherwise invested in academic developments. Without investigating the other options, it is irrational to be fixated on one lofty, but seemingly improvident option.
Secondly, the argument states that tourists are willing to pay money to tour only ‘some’ of the architect’s buildings. It is quite possible that the building the architect creates for the University is not among his bests and it fails to draw any attention from the tourists at all. Because, the argument implies that the university is needs to accrue funds to cover the building costs, it is apparent that it lacks the necessary amount to invest in a noticeable building. Without the required funds, the architect is unlikely to create a very sophisticated, state-of-the-art design that can be a tourist destination. Besides, highly intricate designs would be necessitate expert structural engineers, and workers which would again involve a tremendous strain on the university’s budgets. Even with tourists and donations, it will take a considerably long time to cover all its costs.
Moreover, the argument states that such a building will space much in excess of the required amount. Since an office space is not cited as a major requirement, the extra space is all but necessary for the moment. As such, a smaller building constructed within the budget and financial contributions of the university is a much more pragmatic approach to solve the immediate issue. Besides, there is no gurantee that the planned bigger building can garner enough attention from tourists, or whether in fact they will pay. There is also no assurance regarding how the new students or alumni organisations perceive the whole idea. It is likely that their donations are not enough to cover the expenses.
In conclusion, the argument fails to consider certain critical factors. The assumptions and expectations appear vague and superficial, because of the absence of substantial evidence to verify the claims. Had the argument incorporated data on how it arrived at the said solution as the best, or whether it had even considered alternative solutions, the claims would have been more credible and cogent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 743, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he money is to be utilized for a genuine reason, students and the other mentioned...
^^
Line 3, column 935, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
... structure that can attract tourists to the the extent that they will to pay in order t...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 935, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
... structure that can attract tourists to the the extent that they will to pay in order t...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 548, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hey will pay. There is also no assurance regarding how the new students or alumni...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'besides', 'but', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'regarding', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'for instance', 'in conclusion', 'in fact', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.21178343949 0.25644967241 83% => OK
Verbs: 0.156050955414 0.15541462614 100% => OK
Adjectives: 0.113057324841 0.0836205057962 135% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0509554140127 0.0520304965353 98% => OK
Pronouns: 0.031847133758 0.0272364105082 117% => OK
Prepositions: 0.103503184713 0.125424944231 83% => OK
Participles: 0.0366242038217 0.0416121511921 88% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.00517739606 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0382165605096 0.026700313972 143% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.125796178344 0.113004496875 111% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0270700636943 0.0255425247493 106% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0111464968153 0.0127820249294 87% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3570.0 2731.13054187 131% => OK
No of words: 571.0 446.07635468 128% => OK
Chars per words: 6.25218914186 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88831323574 4.57801047555 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.402802101576 0.378187486979 107% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.322241681261 0.287650121315 112% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.253940455342 0.208842608468 122% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.14711033275 0.135150697306 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00517739606 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Unique words: 289.0 207.018472906 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506129597198 0.469332199767 108% => OK
Word variations: 62.285096372 52.1807786196 119% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.039408867 130% => OK
Sentence length: 21.9615384615 23.2022227129 95% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.9613137717 57.7814097925 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.307692308 141.986410481 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9615384615 23.2022227129 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.615384615385 0.724660767414 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 54.1857065876 51.9672348444 104% => OK
Elegance: 1.47333333333 1.8405768891 80% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.470058033721 0.441005458295 107% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0997438781284 0.135418324435 74% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0680994399521 0.0829849096947 82% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.541707852236 0.58762219726 92% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.12623742795 0.147661913831 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.184387568889 0.193483328276 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0911928274411 0.0970749176394 94% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.513182060598 0.42659136922 120% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.121636529209 0.0774707102158 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.324566276232 0.312017818177 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.086204721912 0.0698173142475 123% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.