The following appeared in a memo from the director of student housing at Buckingham College.
"To serve the housing needs of our students, Buckingham College should build a number of new dormitories. Buckingham's enrollment is growing and, based on current trends, will double over the next 50 years, thus making existing dormitory space inadequate. Moreover, the average rent for an apartment in our town has risen in recent years. Consequently, students will find it increasingly difficult to afford off-campus housing. Finally, attractive new dormitories would make prospective students more likely to enroll at Buckingham."
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 the above memo, the author states four reasons for the building of new dormitories for the student housing of Buckingham’s college. Increase in the enrollment rates, doubling of the enrollment by the next 50 years, increase in the rent of the town and as an attractive feature for the future students. The given reasons are not supported with data and are unreasonable. This brings about questioning the validity of the argument.
The first reason, the author states is the increase in enrollment. There are no data on how many of the enrolled students would prefer to stay in the dorms. They would number of native students or students who prefer living off campus. A data regarding the number of college enrollees currently in dorms might have bolstered the argument. Hence this reason seems unlogical.
Secondly, he provides current trend on the student enrollment that will double in next 50 years. That is a very long period to make building plans. The trend could change for reasons as less ranking of the college, more dropouts and change in the economy. Even if the student number double, there is no data for the application for dorms. Usually plans formulated are either based on either short term on 1 yr or long term on 5yrs are taken. The correctness and precision of the data weakness the argument.
Thirdly, the director points towards the town rent increasing and unaffordability of the students. The author does not take into consideration that some students prefer off campus housing. Less discipline, no time restriction and more privacy would be more attractive for the students. These students might be sharing their rent and other costs of living which might make it affordable. Without taking the number of students who would be living off campus, it would not be a good point to base the building of new dorms.
Finally, the of idea of attractive dorms for the prospective students is unsound and unreasonable. Dorm attractiveness is the least of preference a student gives while applying to a college. A student college application criteria list would include a myriad of other things. Some of them are college ranking, course availability, tuition, renowned faculty and college facilities. Dorms are least of any of the students application lists.
In conclusion, even though the author’s argues for more housing facility for the students as he thinks the enrollment would be increasing in the future. His reasons do not bolster his argument. The lack of proper data and research undermines the argument. The college must investigate further into the issue before making any decisions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 340, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...orms might have bolstered the argument. Hence this reason seems unlogical. Second...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 397, Rule ID: OF_ANY_OF[1]
Message: Consider simply using 'of' instead.
Suggestion: of
...and college facilities. Dorms are least of any of the students application lists. In ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 411, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'students'' or 'student's'?
Suggestion: students'; student's
...cilities. Dorms are least of any of the students application lists. In conclusion, e...
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'first', 'hence', 'if', 'regarding', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'third', 'thirdly', 'while', 'in conclusion']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.289256198347 0.25644967241 113% => OK
Verbs: 0.126033057851 0.15541462614 81% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0702479338843 0.0836205057962 84% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0309917355372 0.0520304965353 60% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0185950413223 0.0272364105082 68% => OK
Prepositions: 0.130165289256 0.125424944231 104% => OK
Participles: 0.0371900826446 0.0416121511921 89% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.81537823309 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.00826446280992 0.026700313972 31% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.00413223140496 0.001811407834 228% => OK
Determiners: 0.142561983471 0.113004496875 126% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0268595041322 0.0255425247493 105% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0103305785124 0.0127820249294 81% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2641.0 2731.13054187 97% => OK
No of words: 432.0 446.07635468 97% => OK
Chars per words: 6.11342592593 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55901411391 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.386574074074 0.378187486979 102% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.282407407407 0.287650121315 98% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.201388888889 0.208842608468 96% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.118055555556 0.135150697306 87% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81537823309 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 207.018472906 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.469907407407 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 51.7366064142 52.1807786196 99% => OK
How many sentences: 29.0 20.039408867 145% => OK
Sentence length: 14.8965517241 23.2022227129 64% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.2250090322 57.7814097925 54% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.0689655172 141.986410481 64% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.8965517241 23.2022227129 64% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.413793103448 0.724660767414 57% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 43.1372924649 51.9672348444 83% => OK
Elegance: 2.6 1.8405768891 141% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.513716264201 0.441005458295 116% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.091915198796 0.135418324435 68% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0707126685169 0.0829849096947 85% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.51908976726 0.58762219726 88% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.156610537786 0.147661913831 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.182603073108 0.193483328276 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106240591837 0.0970749176394 109% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.380940310845 0.42659136922 89% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0986109653343 0.0774707102158 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.342641595142 0.312017818177 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.060959335008 0.0698173142475 87% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.82512315271 249% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 8.0 2.82389162562 283% => OK
Total topic words: 21.0 14.657635468 143% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
More arguments wanted.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.