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.
In this argument the faculty committee suggests the president to provide free tuition at their university in order to enhance the morale among professors and attract new professors. To bolster this argument, the committee point out that the study conducted by a nearby university shows the policy is helpful for faculty retention. Although this recommendation seems plausible, many crucial evidences are not provided in the argument and thus the validity of the recommendation is not well established.
First of all, the committee fails to provide the details of some critical variables associated with the cited study. They do not explain who was in charged of this study, when and how the study was conducted, and how many people was involved in the survey. It is possible that this is just a students assignment and not worth trusting. Thus, we cannot draw a broad conclusion from this evidence. If the committee can provide the evidences show that it is a recent research conducted with strict judgement and a statistically significant sample scope, the credibility of the argument will be more strongly strengthened.
In addition, the committee does not provide any evidence to prove that this free-tuition policy is likely to be functional in Seatown University. they commit a fallacy by falsely assuming that the policy working in nearby university will definitely be successful in their university. However, this is not necessarily the case. For example, perhaps not many children of professors of Seatown University tends to attend the very same university, and professors do not really care about this policy. Or it is also possible that if the university apply this policy, it will not have enough budgets to fund other important projects or programs. In this case, the morale of professors will not be cheered up at all, and the argument is dramatically weakened.
To sum up, despite the committee proposes an interesting policy that may ultimately turns out working well and improve the morale of the university, we cannot conclude this simply from this argument since it is not informative and convincing enough as it stands.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 293, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'students'' or 'student's'?
Suggestion: students'; student's
...vey. It is possible that this is just a students assignment and not worth trusting. Thus...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 147, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: They
...to be functional in Seatown University. they commit a fallacy by falsely assuming th...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, really, so, then, thus, well, for example, in addition, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1802.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 347.0 441.139720559 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19308357349 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91487411839 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 204.123752495 87% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510086455331 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 578.7 705.55239521 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.6595204994 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.133333333 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1333333333 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 5.70786347227 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.240666560979 0.218282227539 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0833162476793 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0873965580628 0.0701772020484 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146101142387 0.128457276422 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0941521156018 0.0628817314937 150% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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: 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.