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.
The author's argument does not make a cogent case about building a number of new dormitories as it is rife with holes and assumptions.
To begin with, the author mentions based on trends, that the enrollment would double over the next 50 years. They, however, did not mention the current enrollment which is a deciding factor for whether the increase would be significant or not. For example, if the current number of students is hundred, it would be two-hundred after 50 years. This refutes the author's argument as arranging accommodation for merely two extra students each year would be no big feat.
The author also makes a bold assumption that the students are on a low budget. It is possible that the majority of their students come from affluent backgrounds and can easily afford off-campus housing, thus vacating dormitories for the students on a low budget.
Lastly, the author mentions that attractive new dormitories would make prospective students more likely to enroll. It seems as though the author thinks the lifestyle and courses offered at Buckingham aren't lucrative enough that the students decision would be swayed by the quality of the dormitories.
Therefore, while the need to construct new dormitories may arise, the author hasn't provided a plausible argument to do the same.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 5, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
The authors argument does not make a cogent case ab...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 295, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a hundred'.
Suggestion: a hundred
...e, if the current number of students is hundred, it would be two-hundred after 50 years...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 348, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ould be two-hundred after 50 years. This refutes the authors argument as arrangin...
^^
Line 3, column 362, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ndred after 50 years. This refutes the authors argument as arranging accommodation for...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 201, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...style and courses offered at Buckingham arent lucrative enough that the students deci...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 78, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hasn't
...t new dormitories may arise, the author hasnt provided a plausible argument to do the...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, lastly, may, so, therefore, thus, while, for example, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 28.8173652695 38% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 55.5748502994 36% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1096.0 2260.96107784 48% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 213.0 441.139720559 48% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1455399061 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.82027741392 4.56307096286 84% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75437651063 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 204.123752495 62% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.591549295775 0.468620217663 126% => OK
syllable_count: 324.9 705.55239521 46% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 19.7664670659 51% => 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: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.1782535263 57.8364921388 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 109.6 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.6 5.70786347227 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.129900192259 0.218282227539 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0538656385225 0.0743258471296 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0276267515446 0.0701772020484 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0697931150941 0.128457276422 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0256972118183 0.0628817314937 41% => 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: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 98.500998004 55% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 33.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 2.0 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.