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 recommendation, at first glance, might seem like a good advice, but when evaluated, the argument is found to be rife with flaws. The argument has made numerous unwarranted assumptions that render it highly suspect. If the assumptions do not hold true, the argument will completely fall apart.
The faculty committee cites a study conducted at the Oceania University that is situated nearby Seatown University. The faculty committee has assumed that Oceania and Seatown University are similar in nature and hence, what worked in Oceania will work in Seatown. There is no additional evidence given by the faculty to support the assumption of similarity. Let us consider a scenario where Oceania University is situated in the city centre and Seatown University is situated in the rural outskirts. To assume that the both the Universities are equally sought out by college aspirants is a fundamental flaw in the argument. The faculty committee needs to provide more information regarding the study at Oceania and how Oceania is similar to Seatown to strengthen its argument.
The argument states that offering free tuition to the professors' college-aged children will increase morale amongst the faculty members.The argument assumes that faculty retention equals high morale. Even if we assume they are the same, the offer will only work if all or majority of the faculty members have college-aged children and want to study in Seatown University. There is a high possibility that high number of professors fall under the category of people who do not have children, do not want to have children in the future, have children who want to study elsewhere or have children who are not college-aged. In all the above-mentioned scenarios, the offer will have no impact or negative impact on the morale of the faculty members. To strengthen its argument, the faculty committee must present a clear representation of faculty members and their desires for their college-aged children, if any.
Even if we were to assume that Oceania and Seatown University are similar and the offer will please majority of the faculty members in Seatown, we can not assume that it will lure new professors. The study conducted in the nearby Oceania University only provides information on faculty retention and no information about the new professors. There are various factors that affect workplace selection for new professors like emphasis on research by the University, the salary offered and opportunity to grow in the University.It is an extrapolation by the faculty committee and needs more evidence to support its claim.
In conclusion, faculty committee needs to provide the aforementioned evidence to strengthen its argument. The president of Seatown University will be taking a disastrous decision if he/she decides to follow through with the recommendation without appropriate evidence.
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 458 350
No. of Characters: 2378 1500
No. of Different Words: 184 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.626 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.192 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.904 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 188 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 159 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.105 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.914 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.474 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.357 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.586 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.162 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 211, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'suspects'?
Suggestion: suspects
...anted assumptions that render it highly suspect. If the assumptions do not hold true, t...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 137, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...ease morale amongst the faculty members.The argument assumes that faculty retention...
^^^
Line 9, column 137, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ease morale amongst the faculty members.The argument assumes that faculty retention...
^^^
Line 13, column 525, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: It
...d opportunity to grow in the University.It is an extrapolation by the faculty comm...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, if, regarding, so, then, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2439.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 455.0 441.139720559 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36043956044 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61852021839 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00216884127 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.424175824176 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 799.2 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.4594403918 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.368421053 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9473684211 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 5.70786347227 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.381614814051 0.218282227539 175% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.132325186761 0.0743258471296 178% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110300889145 0.0701772020484 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.20264655004 0.128457276422 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.115439134027 0.0628817314937 184% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 48.3550499002 65% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.