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.
The author concludes that Seatown university should institute a free tuition policy for its professors in order to support morale of the faculty members and to make becoming a professor attractive. Stated in this way, the argument reveals several instance of poor reasoning and ill defined terminology. The conclusion is based on the premise that the faculty has more professors because the children of the professors are on scholarship in the school. The reasoning of the argument is logically flawed, however, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that if provides little credible support for the author's conclusion. Hence, the argument can be considered unsubstantiated.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that the faculty retention is higher when the School institute the free tuition policy. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. For example, what if the professors decided to stay because the school is credible and the school credibility always make accessing grant from government easy for them. . Hence the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly stated that the professors were all interviewed and they confirmed to remain at the faculty due to the tuition waiver given to their children.
The argument readily claims that the institution of the policy would enhance the morale towards work among the faculty members. This again is a weak and unsupported claim as the reliability of the study needs to be established. For example, what if that's not what the faculty members are asking for? If the argument had provided evidence that the faculty members have once clamored that they want tuition waiver for their wards then it would have been a lot more convincing to the reader.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide clear concrete evidence analysis of the faculty professors retention.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-08 | Keerthi98 | 33 | view |
| 2019-12-02 | Opak Pulu | 58 | view |
| 2019-10-31 | solankis304 | 63 | view |
| 2019-10-16 | Deepali24 | 69 | view |
| 2019-10-14 | Siddhivinayak Shanbhagd | 49 | view |
- Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and suppor 50
- Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and suppor 50
- 'The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station.“Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the c 25
- The following appeared in a memo from New Ventures Consulting to the president of HobCo, Inc., a chain of hobby shops."Our team has completed its research on suitable building sites for a new HobCo hobby Shop in the city of Grilldon. We discovered that th 55
- In a laboratory study of two different industrial cleansers, CleanAll was found to remove 40% more dirt and kill 30% more bacteria than the next best cleanser. Furthermore, a study showed that employees working at buildings cleaned with cleanAll used far 32
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- ??? minimum 3 arguments wanted.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 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: 309 350
No. of Characters: 1596 1500
No. of Different Words: 155 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.193 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.165 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.681 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 131 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 103 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.6 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.515 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.533 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.369 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.554 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 240, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun instance seems to be countable; consider using: 'several instances'.
Suggestion: several instances
...tated in this way, the argument reveals several instance of poor reasoning and ill defined termi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 603, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rovides little credible support for the authors conclusion. Hence, the argument can be ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 362, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ng grant from government easy for them. . Hence the argument would have been much...
^
Line 3, column 364, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... grant from government easy for them. . Hence the argument would have been much more ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 250, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...to be established. For example, what if thats not what the faculty members are asking...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ng to the reader. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, if, so, then, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 55.5748502994 50% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1630.0 2260.96107784 72% => OK
No of words: 309.0 441.139720559 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27508090615 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1926597562 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75276041572 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.511326860841 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 511.2 705.55239521 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => 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: 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: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.6554373521 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.666666667 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.13333333333 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228427005684 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0728493366722 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0684005394273 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133230465163 0.128457276422 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0470071170283 0.0628817314937 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 98.500998004 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.