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.
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the Omega University should terminate students evaluation of professors to enable its graduates. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites the fact that average grades of students have risen and the consequence that the Omega students have not been as successful at getting jobs as those from Alpha University. However, in order to fully evaluate the argument, we need to have a significant amount of additional evidence.
Firstly, the author has to provide more evidence to substantiate the connection between the risen average grades and the student evaluation of professors. The author might ignore many other crucial factors that lead to the risen grades. It is very possible that the reason why average grades have risen is that the better condition of the research equipment in the laboratories. It is even possible that it is the higher scholarship offered by the school which encourages students to study harder that, as a result, lead to the increase of students' grades. Without accounting for those alternative explanation for the risen of students' grades, the author cannot prove that professor evaluation system is having great effect on students' grades.
Secondly, another evidence that would help us to evaluate this claim involves the other possible reason why students at Omega University are not that successful at getting jobs. The author assumes that it is because the inflated grades of Omega students, however, it is not necessarily the case. It is equally possible that the poor education for students career leads to the consequence that they have trouble dealing with the interview. Or perhaps the major of Alpha University is more adaptive for getting a job while Omega University students focus more on research area. In short, without clarifying other possibility of the poorer ability of getting a job of Omega students than Alpha students, the claim that the inflated grades lead to the low rate of getting a job of students in Omega University is significantly weakened.
Finally, in order to fully evaluate the argument, we should also learn more about other alternative ways to help students to secure a job. It is entirely possible that Omega University enable its graduates to secure better jobs through other ways. The arguer might ignore the possibility of helping students get a job by opening more lectures about job obtaining for students to take. Or the university can also train its students about how to behave well during the interview. The author's conclusion is strongly flawed unless the author can convince me that these possible solution is impotent on helping students secure a better job.
Taking what has been discussed above into consideration, the conclusion lacks creditability because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the author need to provide more evidence involving the connection between risen grades and students evaluation of professors ,and other possible reason for which students at Omega University are not that successful at getting jobs. To better evaluate the argument, we still need to know whether there are other possible ways to help students secure a better job.
- The rules that the whole societies today expect to young people to follow and obey are too strict 84
- The rules that societies today expect young people to follow and obey are too strict 76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The rules that societies today expect young people to follow and obey are too strict Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 77
- Car manufacturers and governments have been eagerly seeking a replacement for the automobile s main source of power the internal combustion engine By far the most promising alternative source of energy for cars is the hydrogen based fuel cell engine which 68
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement In the past it was easier to identify what type of career or job would lead to a secure successful future Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 483, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...o behave well during the interview. The authors conclusion is strongly flawed unless th...
Line 9, column 347, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
...es and students evaluation of professors ,and other possible reason for which stud...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, then, well, while, as to, in short, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2758.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 526.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2433460076 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71210362621 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.389733840304 0.468620217663 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 894.6 705.55239521 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.4651626261 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.333333333 119.503703932 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0476190476 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.71428571429 5.70786347227 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => 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: 0.25693247989 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0966485509902 0.0743258471296 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0584896040634 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176418230633 0.128457276422 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0452856982646 0.0628817314937 72% => OK
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.97 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 526 350
No. of Characters: 2701 1500
No. of Different Words: 199 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.789 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.135 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.652 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 213 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 158 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 119 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.048 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.214 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.476 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.382 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.568 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.158 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5