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 graduated 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.
The argument contends that Omega University should terminate the policy of students' evaluation of professors in order for its students to get better jobs. To support this recommendation, the author states a number of reasons: higher grades of students, an overall 30% rise in grades compared to earlier, potential employers' belief that the grades do not accurately reflect student achievement because of the said policy, and comparison with Alpha University whose students are getting better jobs because it does not have any such policy. Stated in this way, the argument is based on a number of assumptions, and unsubstantiated claims that are crucial to evaluate the merits of the proposed solution.
First, the author claims that professors of Omega University have started giving higher grades to students since the time the policy under question is adopted. Without any evidence to support this claim, the author fails to consider the possible positive effects of the policy. Perhaps, professors are actually making significant efforts to impart the best possible knowledge to their students with innovative techniques. It is entirely possible that it is the increased efforts of the professors to get good evaluation from the students, that led to increased grades for students.
Second, the claim of potential employers' belief that these grades are inflated, and students' achievements are not accurately reflecting what they know, is unwarranted unless the author provides any evidence showing that these employers are actually aware of the said policy. Even if it is true that professors are purposefully assigning higher grades to their students, how do we know that the employers are aware of this policy, or its side effects? If this is not the case, it would not furnish a good reason to believe that this policy is the reason behind students' low performance at getting good jobs.
Third, Is it not possible that there are some other factors, perhaps lack of practical knowledge that is responsible for students not getting good jobs? Maybe the policy is working as intended, that is to improve professors' performance. However, the learning could be based on a theoretical approach with complete negligence toward field knowledge. If true, students' unsatisfactory performance at placements possibly has nothing to do with the policy under question.
Lastly, the author makes an unwarranted comparison with Alpha University whose students' are getting better jobs compared to Omega's students. A lot of factors include but are not limited to, students' passion for their field of study, how bright they are - intellectual ability to grasp new things, research vs theory oriented approach that must be the same in both universities, and university's reputation amongst the employers, etc. may be the reason for better performance of Alpha University.
In the view of the above, the absence of evidence for a number of assumptions that are critical to evaluate the argument makes the argument flawed, and therefore unconvincing. To further bolster the argument, the author must provide enough details regarding awareness of the said policy among the potential employers, evidence suggesting that higher grades are actually inflated, and evidence that all the factors that may affect students' performance for getting good jobs are more or less same for both the universities for accurate comparison.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 535 350
No. of Characters: 2812 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.809 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.256 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.764 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 233 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 172 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 127 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.722 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.999 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.363 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.615 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 315, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'employers'' or 'employer's'?
Suggestion: employers'; employer's
...n grades compared to earlier, potential employers belief that the grades do not accuratel...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 32, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'employers'' or 'employer's'?
Suggestion: employers'; employer's
...nts. Second, the claim of potential employers belief that these grades are inflated, ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, lastly, may, regarding, second, so, therefore, third, it is true, more or less
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2883.0 2260.96107784 128% => OK
No of words: 535.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38878504673 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80937282943 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8384751669 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.441121495327 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 906.3 705.55239521 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 86.0176816198 57.8364921388 149% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.736842105 119.503703932 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.1578947368 23.324526521 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.94736842105 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.266776768633 0.218282227539 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0890374636624 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0808070492687 0.0701772020484 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147449972528 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0730235220488 0.0628817314937 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.0 14.3799401198 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 48.3550499002 72% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 98.500998004 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.