The argument claims that if Buckingham College builds new attractive dormitories, they would fulfill the demand for accommodation of current students and attract more potential ones applying to the school. Stated in this way the argument: reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology and fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the enrollment would be twice as much as the current rate and there could be a lack of dorms over the next five decades. This statement is a stretch since the author does not provide any statistical evidence to prove the conjecture. Suppose, for example, the number of students has been applying to this college lately. This argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the rate of admission during the last three years or the enrollment being on the upward trend.
Second, the argument claims that the shortage of new dorms causes the low number of students register to the college. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between building new dormitories and the admission rate. To illustrate, organizing several seminars about career orientation or job market preparation during the study period might be a better solution to engage future students. If the argument had provided evidence that the action might positively affect the current enrollment, then the argument would have been a lot more cogent.
Finally, the argument is still ambiguous in many aspects: would those new dormitories negatively affect financial budget of the college in long-term? Could the author provide any statistical proof about the average rent cost for an apartment in local regions? How could the author ensure rent a room in new dormitories might be more cost effective than hiring outside houses? Without persuasive answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore implausible. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts to support the conclusion that implementing this change would bring more benefits for Buckingham College.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, if, second, so, still, then, therefore, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2135.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 401.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32418952618 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47492842339 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83314819406 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521197007481 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 655.2 705.55239521 93% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.1810216387 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.611111111 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2777777778 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.94444444444 5.70786347227 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => 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: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.105144651206 0.218282227539 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0350495503039 0.0743258471296 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0448480441679 0.0701772020484 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0610957556134 0.128457276422 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0133625840363 0.0628817314937 21% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.02 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.