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 author concludes that, the Seatown University should introduce free-tution policies for its faculty members to increase morale and attract the new professors by giving the evidence of Oceania University. The statement might seem plausible at first glance however, it is flawed in some aspects.
Firstly, the author assumes that, the professor retention is higher in Oceania university when their offsprings are offered free tution fees.The statement seems illogical here as there is no strong evidence to prove this claim that the only factor to increase the job retention of the faculty members is the facilty of full tution waiver of their children. How can we posit that this is the only factor to play a crucial role in the job retention of the professors? there can be several other factors like good work environment, good salary or neighbourhood of that campus which might play cardina roles in the retention of the teachers. Hence, it is an imprudent idea to assume this and take a decision based on this.
Furthermore, the author inferred that, which is true for OCeania university will be true and feasible for seatown university too. This is a significant flaw of this argument because we cannot impose one idea to an different type of scenario. The author lacks in delineating any possible relation between these two universities for which it seems irrational to take a decision based on the result gathered from another institution. Earlier I have mentioned that the assumption about the relation between job retention and full-free studentship of their progenies is not authentic, thus it is flawed from the very intial part of the argument. If the author mentioned that, 50% job retention has been increased after providing free education to the children of the professors in Seatown university, then the flaw of this argument could have been ignored.
Finally, the author assumes that if seatown university starts to provide eduction without any payment to the children of its faculty members, morale will be enhanced among the professors and new professors will be attracted more. The morale of a person is not related with a particular facility he has been provided from his workplace and if there was any relation between these two things the author should have incorporated that in this write up. Moreover, there is no clear indication about the preferences of the upcoming or prospective professor, no statement that might show that most of the future professors are looking for a university where their offsprings will be provided with free education. Many of the professors might not have any children at all which weakens the statement of the authors. This point could have been considered as a logical one if it was mentioned that the future faculty members are enthusiastic about teaching at an institution where there children will get facilities to study without any fees.
To recapitulate, I can concede with the proposed decision of the author if the above mentioned flawed are corrected as it is not prudent to take a decision based on the authors claims which is illogical.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 11 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 513 350
No. of Characters: 2559 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.759 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.988 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.694 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 191 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 153 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 106 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 71 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 32.062 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.919 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.688 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.487 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.115 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 3 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 142, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...offsprings are offered free tution fees.The statement seems illogical here as there...
^^^
Line 2, column 467, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: There
...in the job retention of the professors? there can be several other factors like good ...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 720, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...this and take a decision based on this. Furthermore, the author inferred that, w...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 212, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...nt because we cannot impose one idea to an different type of scenario. The author ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, moreover, so, then, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2606.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 512.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08984375 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75983404573 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.4453125 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 832.5 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 69.7455583286 57.8364921388 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.294117647 119.503703932 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.1176470588 23.324526521 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.17647058824 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.241438058102 0.218282227539 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0805776221698 0.0743258471296 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0654331608079 0.0701772020484 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136274845006 0.128457276422 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0740498933901 0.0628817314937 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 14.3799401198 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 48.3550499002 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 98.500998004 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.9071856287 151% => 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.