The argument has been established based on some unstated assumptions. A study which was conducted at nearby University doesn't provide enough details to analyze the cause and reasons for the conclusion. Without proper backing details, concluding based on assumptions makes the argument to fall apart.
On the first hand, the argument had missed to provide any further details about both Seatown University and Oceania University. The comparison made about the free tuition provided to the Oceania University's college-aged children of faculty members. The Oceania University could have only young staffs and so they might have started to provide free tuition for their faculties' children to encourage and attract the staffs through benefits. In top of that, we don't know how many children of faculty members have gained the free tuition in reality. There might be single digit of students could have gained or none since they always preferred unmarried or young people as their staffs. Had the argument provided the number of faculties who had received those benefits, it could have strengthened the argument's claim.
Secondly, the university's ranking among the other universities would make a huge impact on the argument. The Seatown University may have higher ranking and rife reputation, on the other hand, Oceania University is an average ranked university. In such case, providing seats for Seatown University's faculty's family members even though their children don't qualify to get the seats through the common system, then it would lead to partiality in admissions and impact University's reputation whereas, Oceania University would not face any such problems instead they can attract people to work in the University. In addition to that, if Seatown University has a high reputation, it does not have to do anything in specific to lure new professors, in fact, professors would have high competition to be a part of Seatown University. If the details of both University's demand and ranking has been provided, the argument could have strengthened its claim.
Finally, we don't know anything about the number of staffs working in both universities and how big the institution is. In case, the Seatown University is a deemed University with branches of engineering, arts and science, and nursing, the number of staffs would be significantly greater than a University which may administer only one branch. Additionally, Seatown University might have provided other great benefits to its faculty members like good medical insurance, flexible working hours, great freedom to express faculty's opinion, and these things would have been a dream of Oceania University faculty members. In this way, the argument's lack of reasons weakens its authenticity on conclusion.
To sum up, the argument could have provided the number of staffs in both universities, working environment, University ranking and other details to support its claim. Without these reasonings we can not conclude.
Essay evaluation report
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 469 350
No. of Characters: 2468 1500
No. of Different Words: 210 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.654 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.262 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.789 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 193 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 161 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.45 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.342 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.371 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.565 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.16 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 120, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...hich was conducted at nearby University doesnt provide enough details to analyze the c...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 37, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'missed providing'.
Suggestion: missed providing
... On the first hand, the argument has missed to provide any further details about both Seatown ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 459, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...fs through benefits. In top of that, we dont know how many children of faculty membe...
^^^^
Line 3, column 815, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... have strengthened the arguments claim. Secondly, the universitys ranking among ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 350, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...mily members even though their children dont qualify to get the seats through the co...
^^^^
Line 7, column 13, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... strengthened its claim. Finally, we dont know anything about the number of staff...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, whereas, in addition, in fact, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.6327345309 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2523.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 465.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42580645161 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64369019777 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82034299424 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.458064516129 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 788.4 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.399171266 57.8364921388 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.15 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.25 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6 5.70786347227 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => 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: 0.284876143832 0.218282227539 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.093766068145 0.0743258471296 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0742059188043 0.0701772020484 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155959977384 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0671996883976 0.0628817314937 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.51 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.