The following appeared in a letter from the faculty committee to the president of Seatown University:
A study conducted at nearby Oceania University showed that faculty retention is higher when professors are offered free tuition at the university for their own college-aged children. Therefore, Seatown should institute a free-tuition policy for its professors for the purpose of enhancing morale among the faculty and luring new 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 faculty committee's suggestion of offering professor's college-aged children free tuition at the university in order to retain current professors and to attract new one is well intended, but a few pieces of evidence is needed before this argument can be evaluated.
First, the faculty committee need evidence to show that there are enough parallels between Seatown University and Oceania University that the same policy will produce comparable results at the two universities. If the conditions are drastically different at the two universities, for example, if many professors at Oceania University have teenage children while most professors at Seatown University are senior, implementing the same policy at both universities may not provide the same results.
In addition to proving that the policy will provide the desired results, the committee should also demonstrate that the policy is practical. Information regarding the cost of implementing the policy and the current budget of the university will be helpful. If Seatown university is currently having financial difficulty and the cost of instituting the policy is too high, the university should not offer professor's children free tuition, contrary to the committee's argument.
Finally, even if the policy is practical and will have similar effects as it did at Oceania university, the committee still needs evidence showing such a policy is need. If the university already have a high faculty retention rate, and is attracting new professor, the university probably won't need a new policy to make teaching at the university more attractive. The committee will need data on the faculty retention rate and the number of new professors applying in the past few years to show this.
In conclusion, though the committee's argument that the university should implement the new policy to retain current faculty and attract new ones is aimed to improve the university, a few more pieces of evidence showing the similarity between Seatown and Oceania, the practicality of instituting the policy, and the necessity of instituting the policy, is needed to evaluate the validity of the argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 455, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'committees'' or 'committee's'?
Suggestion: committees'; committee's
... children free tuition, contrary to the committees argument. Finally, even if the polic...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 27, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'committees'' or 'committee's'?
Suggestion: committees'; committee's
...how this. In conclusion, though the committees argument that the university should imp...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'so', 'still', 'well', 'while', 'for example', 'in addition', 'in conclusion']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.273480662983 0.25644967241 107% => OK
Verbs: 0.168508287293 0.15541462614 108% => OK
Adjectives: 0.102209944751 0.0836205057962 122% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0359116022099 0.0520304965353 69% => OK
Pronouns: 0.00276243093923 0.0272364105082 10% => Some pronouns wanted.
Prepositions: 0.110497237569 0.125424944231 88% => OK
Participles: 0.0552486187845 0.0416121511921 133% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.9796308571 2.79052419416 107% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0276243093923 0.026700313972 103% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.135359116022 0.113004496875 120% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0276243093923 0.0255425247493 108% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0 0.0127820249294 0% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2157.0 2731.13054187 79% => OK
No of words: 335.0 446.07635468 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.43880597015 6.12365571057 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27820116611 4.57801047555 93% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.44776119403 0.378187486979 118% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.370149253731 0.287650121315 129% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.262686567164 0.208842608468 126% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.191044776119 0.135150697306 141% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9796308571 2.79052419416 107% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 207.018472906 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.441791044776 0.469332199767 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 44.22342859 52.1807786196 85% => OK
How many sentences: 10.0 20.039408867 50% => More sentences wanted.
Sentence length: 33.5 23.2022227129 144% => OK
Sentence length SD: 81.9585871035 57.7814097925 142% => OK
Chars per sentence: 215.7 141.986410481 152% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.5 23.2022227129 144% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.4 0.724660767414 193% => Less Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 70.5149253731 51.9672348444 136% => OK
Elegance: 2.12 1.8405768891 115% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.581503015332 0.441005458295 132% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.257203441171 0.135418324435 190% => Sentence is so close to another sentence.
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0841627388991 0.0829849096947 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.812487416183 0.58762219726 138% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.108952219129 0.147661913831 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.360075267289 0.193483328276 186% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0555387587334 0.0970749176394 57% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.4651557312 0.42659136922 109% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.151634756676 0.0774707102158 196% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.431276565549 0.312017818177 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0515877766035 0.0698173142475 74% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.87684729064 29% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 5.36822660099 37% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 10.0 14.657635468 68% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.