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.
The above argument suggests that in order to aid its students to secure better jobs, Omega University should terminate student evaluation of professors. The evidences provided in the passage seems to support the claim that it be a better choice to terminate the student evaluation of professors. These evidences look satisfactory and seem to support the conclusion. But a closer look unearths unsaid assumptions that could weaken the overall conclusion.
Firstly, a comparison has been made between Omega University and Alpha University. The comparison states that the students at Alpha University secure better jobs than Omega University. The passage suggests that it is due to the student evaluation of teacher that has led to such a situation. The author of the passage fails to take into consideration, the other aspects which might have led to companies going to Alpha University and hiring students from there. It is possible that Alpha university does a better job of approaching potential companies that would hire their students. Moreover, it can be the case that Alpha University compels these students to go through rigorous rounds of mock interviews that helps them better prepare for the crucial day, something that Omega University fails to do. This could mean that blaming the student evaluation of teacher for the failure of students securing good jobs is unjust.
Secondly, it is stated in the passage that potential employers infer from the inflated grades that the students studying at Omega University are not actually good enough. The author states that the increase in grades over the last fifteen years are the effects of the student evaluation of teacher initiative. The author fails to express other possible reasoning for the potential employers to dis-regard Omega University when it comes to their hiring process. It is possible that over the last few years the quality of education has declined at Omega University which inhibits potential employers to approach the students studying here. Perhaps, the courses taught at Omega University are not in-line with the courses that potential employers expect the students to study. That could prove the supposed ignorance towards Omega University.
Lastly, the trend that the author points out regarding the increase in grades of students studying at Omega University as a result of student evaluation of teacher is based upon unstated assumptions. Such a trend could also be co-incidental and nothing to do with the initiative started by Omega University. It could be possible that the students actually perform well and rightfully achieve their grades. It can be true that since students have started evaluation of their teachers' pedantic abilities. Teachers with bad scores are replaced with good ones, which has led to an increase in the grades of the students. This would suggest that student evaluation of teacher initiative is actually a good program.
In sum, the author has shown a connection between the week employment at Omega University to the student evaluation of teacher program that is based upon unwarranted and unstated assumptions. It is thus possible that such fallacious evidences and reasoning could weaken the author' conclusion.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 511 350
No. of Characters: 2676 1500
No. of Different Words: 199 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.755 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.237 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.688 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 208 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 170 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 121 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 74 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.44 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.906 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.4 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.35 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.523 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.13 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 293, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...acher that has led to such a situation. The author of the passage fails to take int...
^^^
Line 3, column 395, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'company'.
Suggestion: company
...e other aspects which might have led to companies going to Alpha University and hiring st...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, if, lastly, look, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, thus, well, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 28.0 13.6137724551 206% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 44.0 28.8173652695 153% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2727.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 511.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33659491194 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75450408675 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75992276114 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.389432485323 0.468620217663 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 853.2 705.55239521 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.864967882 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.08 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.44 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.84 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.30052463454 0.218282227539 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100926554087 0.0743258471296 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0553958954731 0.0701772020484 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.179789819666 0.128457276422 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0535294712078 0.0628817314937 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.66 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.