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 author describes a survey that is taken at Oceania University regarding free tuition for the retention of faculty and applies it to another University, claiming that this free tuition policy will lead to boosted morale among current faculty and increased appeal for newly acquired talent. This argument is lacking due to several weak claims that lack proper evidence in support of the argument.
In this first sentence itself we are told that this is a study conducted at a nearby University named Oceania. We need further evidence regarding the study itself and the similarities between Oceania and Seatown other than just the location. If the universities greatly differ in size and focus, the conclusions at Oceania may not be applied to a smaller or larger school such as Seatown. Additionally, we need a better understanding of who was studied and what questions were asked. If the questions weren't even asked to faculty then how can we make assumptions about them? We also don't know any information as to changes in retention at Oceania. If there were high changes in the retention rate and if we find the two universities to be pretty similar, then the argument for free tuition is strengthened, but not otherwise.
Weak claims are also made about talent acquisition. We aren't told much about what matters to faculty when they are hired. Is having free tuition for their children really crucial for them? If so, then implementing this is definitely something Seatown should do. In addition, claims are made about the morale of employees, but there is no mention of that from the study at Oceania. All we know from the study is that faculty retention was shown to be higher, but that doesn't necessarily imply boosted morale. If the study showed that there was boosted morale, that would be an added benefit to Seatown, but only if that is a part of their ultimate goals.
Last, we need to understand Seatown's goals, before we even consider the implementation of a new measure such as free tuition. There are three main directions this could go: Seatown could be focused on retention of current faculty, seatown could be focused on acquisition, or seatown could not be focused on any of those things and thus this study would be irrelevant. If the goals are either option 1 or option 2, the next step would be to better understand Seatown's target audience (new faculty or existing faculty or both) and then analyze their needs in being kept at the university or being acquired. If we for example find the goal is retention and we know Seatown staff are upset at the benefits they are being offered currently, this could be a nice boost in terms of benefits and morale, since this is a huge load off their wallets.
Overall, we need to validate Seatown's goals, their target audience(s), and better understand the relationship between Oceania and Seatown in order to understand if a study at Oceania can really be used at Seatown. Doing the three things above, would strengthen the argument and allow the claims to validate the free tuition study.
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: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 529 350
No. of Characters: 2497 1500
No. of Different Words: 226 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.796 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.72 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.542 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 175 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.045 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.439 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.818 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.31 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.504 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.187 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 502, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
... questions were asked. If the questions werent even asked to faculty then how can we m...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 584, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...we make assumptions about them? We also dont know any information as to changes in r...
^^^^
Line 5, column 56, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
... also made about talent acquisition. We arent told much about what matters to faculty...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 201, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ren really crucial for them? If so, then implementing this is definitely somethin...
^^
Line 5, column 469, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ention was shown to be higher, but that doesnt necessarily imply boosted morale. If th...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 192, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...erstand if a study at Oceania can really be used at Seatown. Doing the three thin...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, really, regarding, so, then, thus, as to, for example, in addition, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 38.0 19.6327345309 194% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 11.1786427146 215% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 28.8173652695 160% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2556.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 525.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 4.86857142857 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78673985869 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60447896087 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.44380952381 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 794.7 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.2151627177 57.8364921388 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.181818182 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8636363636 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.63636363636 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => 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: 0.319442128057 0.218282227539 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101731981623 0.0743258471296 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0689251563377 0.0701772020484 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.202487360819 0.128457276422 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0383207705664 0.0628817314937 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.91 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.