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 declares that the Omega University should stop the student evaluation of professors. To justify the associated suggestion, the arguer points out an example involving the fact that the students' grade averages at Omega has increased, but the graduates have not been as good at finding jobs as those students from Alpha University. Although this suggestion may seem logical at first glance, with a series of unwarranted and poor assumptions and holes, the argument fails to be convincing as it stands.
Firstly, it is unreliable to assert that the failure of getting better jobs should be blamed on the student evaluation, though it is entirely feasible. The authors ignore the testimony of the employment information for both of two universities until the deployment of the student evaluation. For example, it is likely that the Alpha University was superior to Omega in terms of finding jobs in the long range of history. Therefore, if the arguer can provide the convincing evidence about the employment rate of different universities, the arguer's argument would be significantly strengthened.
Furthermore, it is unreasonable to unfairly assume without substantiation that the higher grade averages pose a threat to the student achievement. In fact, the students would find it easy to learn more job-related knowledge after completeing their course work, since the information from senior teachers are always outdated and may not suitable for the latest requirement of companies. An appropriated example cannot be far away: many students learn C language (a type of computer programming language) in their lecture-based course, while the famous companies, such as Google and Microsoft, always require the candidates should master the latest languages, such as Python, Go and Java, etc. Thereby, the arguer should supply more details about the relationship between the higher grades and the failure of getting jobs. Otherwise, nobody is willing to accept such immature suggestion.
Additionally, even if the aforementioned assumptions on which the conclusion is based on are receivable, the assumption merely relies on the fact that the professors tend to give higher grades for all students under the constraint of student evaluation, and we are not informed any professional and plausible information. In reality, it is possible that the student evaluation push professors to improve the quality of their teaching ability, and therefore the students are able to get higher grade. If the arguer can provide more convincing infomation to prove that the professional abilities of all students were ruined, the proposed argument would be more acceptable.
Overall, the unpersuasive argument cannot be receivable at this version without convincing information. Otherwise, hastily carrying out such suggestion would pose a threat to the improvement of professors' teaching ability.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 446 350
No. of Characters: 2408 1500
No. of Different Words: 219 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.596 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.399 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.974 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 196 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 149 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 112 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 77 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.875 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.071 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.688 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.337 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.057 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 539, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
...ent rate of different universities, the arguers argument would be significantly strengt...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, furthermore, if, may, so, then, therefore, while, for example, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2461.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 446.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.51793721973 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5955099915 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08093370042 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515695067265 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 775.8 705.55239521 110% => 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: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.5600975577 57.8364921388 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.764705882 119.503703932 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.2352941176 23.324526521 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.88235294118 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
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: 0.248553418352 0.218282227539 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0808834221632 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0749256601394 0.0701772020484 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133521133612 0.128457276422 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0700841264651 0.0628817314937 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 14.3799401198 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.3550499002 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.03 12.5979740519 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.39 8.32208582834 113% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 98.500998004 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.