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 given argument suggests that Oceania University saw higher faculty retention when professors are offered free tuition at the university for their own college-aged children. Therefore, Seatown has proclivity or predilection to institute a free-tuition policy for its professors for the purpose of enhancing morale among the faculty and luring new professors. There are several evidences imperative to evaluate the argument. The content further details out each one of them succinctly.
Firstly, we need to know the demographics of Oceania University at different points in time to analyse the growth in rate of faculty retention. We also need to consider what factors contributed which led the professors to retain in the University. Free tuition might be a superficial assumption but an in-depth analysis is required to confirm its veracity. Every outcome is driven by a cause. In this case, if we can list the possible reasons for retention then we can work on each of them individually to see their share in the final outcome.
Moving on, we need to consider the existing circumstances and situations in Oceania University and how they differ from Seatown. We need to consider how both Universities offer perquisites and what is the overall environment which is provided to the professors. We need to see whether there are any environmental factors which have a say in the decision-making process of retention. This is necessary because environment, surroundings and work culture often have a significant role to play in influencing our decisions related to the workplace. If we look for such factors then we can see what were the professors' predilections and analyse them accordingly before Seatown implements a similar policy.
In addition, we need to see the number of college-aged children of professors in both Universities. If Seatown does not have a major number of college-aged children then the favored change in policy would not achieve its goal of enhancing morale among the faculty and luring new professors. Since, children are a key parameter of the process, their count would have a big impact on reasoning the professor retention in Oceania University.
We also need to see the methods implemented by Oceania University for the sole purpose of enhancing morale among the faculty and luring new professors. The policy of free tuition at the university for the professors' own college-aged children must not have been constructed with an end result similar to what Seatown is looking for. Hence, if we find any ideas from Oceania University which were implemented or thought with the same or similar goal in mind as Seatown, then we can analyse those and derive something such that it benefits Seatown.
Lastly, we need to consider the differences in tuition costs for students in both Universities to check for anomalies and similarities before implementing the successful idea on Seatown. This check is necessary to ensure that economies at both Universities are parallel and alike in nature. Since, a parameter that is modified in the policy is tuition, we need to consider it as a factor and find the differences possible in both universities to see their pecuniary establishments.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 516 350
No. of Characters: 2648 1500
No. of Different Words: 218 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.766 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.132 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.018 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 198 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 168 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 111 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 84 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.435 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.494 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.478 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.555 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.203 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, look, so, then, therefore, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2706.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 516.0 441.139720559 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24418604651 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.76609204519 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08755904431 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.434108527132 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 879.3 705.55239521 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.3558915667 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.652173913 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4347826087 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.21739130435 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.284840926617 0.218282227539 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0928503425922 0.0743258471296 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0951651150159 0.0701772020484 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.181533573539 0.128457276422 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0923544493787 0.0628817314937 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.