The author posits an argument which aims to dissent the ongoing teacher assessment procedure in Omega University and recommends to annul such procedure to enhance the success of graduates from Omega University. He also compares the success of graduates from Omega university to that of Alpha University. All these points seem logical at first glance but on a deeper thought they seem to be fraught with loopholes and seem to be made on frivolous assumptions.
The author's argument is specious because he assumes that effectiveness of all the professors is delegated because of the fifteen years ago procedure which is still being practiced in the Omega University. The author does not base his assumption with any logical or statistical survey that could clearly reveal about the student's grade before that procedure and also about the efficacy of professors fifteen years ago. It is viable to reflect that because of the evaluation procedure the professors could have become more serious and diligent in their teaching skills. As the objective of the evaluation process was to enhance the efficacy of teachers, it is possible that this idea worked and because of which teaching effectiveness increased and therefore, motivating students to work diligently and bring good grades in examination.
The author negatively ruminates that the grades given to the students of Omega University must be fallacious as the teachers should have not shown probity in their marking in order to increase their personal evaluation scores which are graded by those students only. Without any empirical evidence, he makes this assumption.
The author assumes that only because of such a dramatic rise in scores of Graduates of Omega University, the potential employers are judging these students and are not giving them a job. The argument is based on tenuous reasoning as there is no information about the number of students at Omega University who really wanted to pursue the job after graduation. As it feasible to think that most of the students with good grades aspired to go for masters instead of a job. Or it possible that they could have other ideas to work upon such as they could have wanted to make their own company and hence, they must have started working for it instead of going for a job. Therefore, the author should have insightful knowledge about a number of students graduates from Omega University who went for job searches.
Therefore, the author should ruminate about these aforementioned reasons and should further evaluate his own conclusion.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK. need to argue:
as a result, Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University.
argument 3 -- not OK. need to argue:
To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should terminate student evaluation of professors.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 415 350
No. of Characters: 2112 1500
No. of Different Words: 193 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.513 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.089 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.671 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 160 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.631 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.616 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.173 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 118, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'recommends annulling'.
Suggestion: recommends annulling
...sment procedure in Omega University and recommends to annul such procedure to enhance the success o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 5, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... be made on frivolous assumptions. The authors argument is specious because he assumes...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, if, really, so, still, therefore, as to, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2142.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 415.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16144578313 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51348521516 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7265632564 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.457831325301 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 692.1 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.9174124652 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.8 119.503703932 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6666666667 23.324526521 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.86666666667 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.290446707329 0.218282227539 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101425239443 0.0743258471296 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0680621277411 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155988683541 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0863736107182 0.0628817314937 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.3799401198 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.3550499002 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.