Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by 30 percent. Potential employers, looking at this dramatic rise in grades, believe that grades at Omega are inflated and do not accurately reflect student achievement; as a result, Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University. To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should terminate student evaluation of professors.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
At first, it might seem logical to agree with the author's argument that the new procedure which allows students to evaluate the professors, maybe the reason for the downfall of the job securement at Omega University. However, in order to better evaluate this claim, we need additional evidence that will support this controversy. The argument could become weaker or it actually might become more valid. In order to make that determination, we need to further analyze this situation.
The first point of evidence that could further set the tone for this claim is more information on the procedure itself and the results of the evaluation. The author does not properly state on what bases are these criteria being judged by. He blindly just hints about the procedure which evaluates the teaching efficiency. Also, if the author had mentioned the results of the procedure, then it would have been easier to reflect and see whether the teaching staff has been changed or not, which could directly affect the grades and hence the probability of getting a job. Hence the argument could have either be weakened or strengthened, depending on the results.
Another piece of evidence that might help us evaluate this claim is the number of companies coming in for recruitments. In this statement, the number of companies coming in, play a significant role in determining the power of the argument. If we were to learn that, due to any external reasons, rarely any companies came to Omega university compared to Alpha university, then it would drastically weaken the argument as the main reason would be the shortage of companies coming in for recruitment and the main point can be neglected.
In addition to this, we have to also consider other factors that could possibly hinder the rate of job securement. In this statement, the author only talks about the increment in the grades. No, where he has mentioned other factors that play a crucial role in getting jobs like interview skills, extra-curricular activities, leadership roles, etc. The argument would be weakened significantly, if these other factors were also considered into the picture, meaning that the new procedure isn’t the sole reason for not landing a proper job.
In conclusion, the argument that if the university were to terminate the student evaluation of the professor is a weak one, as there isn’t sufficient evidence that would support this claim. We need to have additional evidence like; the result of the procedure, the number of companies coming in, or other factors that would hinder the job securement process. Apart from these points, a lot of other information about universities is also needed to further analyze this insight.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 447 350
No. of Characters: 2205 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.598 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.933 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.668 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 152 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.833 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.103 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.332 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.563 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.159 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 51, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...it might seem logical to agree with the authors argument that the new procedure which a...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 572, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...hence the probability of getting a job. Hence the argument could have either be weake...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 66, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...ave to also consider other factors that could possibly hinder the rate of job securement. In t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 134, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...te of job securement. In this statement, the author only talks about the incremen...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, hence, however, if, may, so, then, apart from, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2272.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 445.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10561797753 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59293186426 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75552170857 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.47191011236 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 718.2 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.3459379236 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.578947368 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4210526316 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05263157895 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => 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: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.102154661888 0.218282227539 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0332656124097 0.0743258471296 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0401093294259 0.0701772020484 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0623533847732 0.128457276422 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0262933572167 0.0628817314937 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.