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 given argument states that Seatown institute should adopt a free-tuition policy for its professors for the purpose of enhancing morale among faculty and luring new professors. To bolster this , a study conducted at a nearby Oceania university showed that faculty retention is higher when professors are offered free tuition at the university for their on college-aged children. The given argument is rendered ineffective since it makes some illogical proposition that when put to logical dissection do not survive it. The absence of specific evidence to corroborate the given claim reduces the merit of the argument and belies its inherent claims.
To begin with we need the specific evidence regarding economic budget of both the institutions mentioned above, absence of same could effect the merit of the argument. Above mentioned policy of providing tuition free to the professor's college-aged children put pressure on the economic condition of both the institute as without considering economic limit and adopting a policy like it could have fatal results for example, it might be possible that Seatown economic budget is way less than that of Oceania University then Seatown institute could not afford to adopt such kind of policy which put a heavy burden on its budget. Therefore, author should have provide the details regarding economic budget of both the university before making such claims.
Further specific evidence is needed about the faculty details of Seatown institute which include number of faculty members, martial information and pay scale of the faculty members. Absence of these details belies the claim done by the argument. For example, it might be possible that Seatown institute gives enough pay to the professors to afford college tuition fees for their children then adopting such policy seems completely useless or it might be possible that most of the professors are newly married thus not require this kind of policy or their children are past to college life. Thus, details regarding pay scale, number of faculty members or martial information are necessary to bolster this argument.
It can be argued that the professors of Seatown institute do not require this kind of policy instead of this, they require better infrastructure and research-development funding. Author should have taken these other factors into account before adopting such kind of policy for Seatown institute.
It is evident that the specific evidence if provided could have impacted the merit of the argument since it fails to provide on the same on grounds of pure logic and reason, we can reject this argument owing to its inherent flawed structure and limited scope.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 426 350
No. of Characters: 2225 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.543 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.223 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.658 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 185 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.429 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 16.982 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.379 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.637 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.133 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 196, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...d luring new professors. To bolster this , a study conducted at a nearby Oceania u...
^^
Line 1, column 346, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e offered free tuition at the university for their on college-aged children. The ...
^^
Line 3, column 135, Rule ID: AFFECT_EFFECT[6]
Message: Did you mean 'affect'?
Suggestion: affect
... mentioned above, absence of same could effect the merit of the argument. Above mentio...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 658, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'provided'.
Suggestion: provided
...s budget. Therefore, author should have provide the details regarding economic budget o...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 261, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ent flawed structure and limited scope.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, regarding, so, then, therefore, thus, for example, kind of, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2264.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 426.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31455399061 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54310108192 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69229798276 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.43661971831 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 735.3 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 99.1585002068 57.8364921388 171% => OK
Chars per sentence: 161.714285714 119.503703932 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.4285714286 23.324526521 130% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.233089949758 0.218282227539 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0930963550549 0.0743258471296 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.157719543177 0.0701772020484 225% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127934756942 0.128457276422 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.132141698087 0.0628817314937 210% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.8 14.3799401198 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.57 48.3550499002 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.197005988 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.11 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.