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 director of student housing at Buckingham College made some assumptions and concluded that the student housing needs more dormitories. According to the director the Buckingham's enrollment is growing and it will be double over the next 50 years. He also concluded that the average rent for an apartment in the town also has risen and the attractive dormitories will definitely allure the students more likely to enroll at Buckingham. Although his assertion sounds plausible at first glance, careful consideration reveals that it is based on groundless assumptions derived from poor information.
Firstly, the enrollment is growing based on current trends is acceptable that the number of students enrolled current year is more than previous but the assumption that the enrollments will double over next 50 years is illogical. Any assumption can be made for next two or three years on the basis of present data not up to 50 years. The economy will not be constant for 50 years as well as the other factors such as market conditions, viability of resources, and fortune also cannot be considered same for 50 years. Therefore, the 50 years plan is hard to validate.
Secondly, director made a direct relation between number of enrollments in Buckingham College and the space in dormitories. This relation is also not reasonable. All the enrolled students take admission is not possible and the space in dormitories fills with students who take admission. The college’s open enrollments for the students who are interested in the available courses but all of them might not be selected for admission. The director has to understand the reasoning behind the assumption than conclude the final point.
Thirdly, It is clearly mentioned in the memo that the attractive new dormitories would make prospective students more likely to enroll at Buckingham college which is based on illogical assumption. The prospective students firstly consider the available courses and the faculty present in the college after than they look at luxuries. For students at college level the knowledge is more important than the other aspects of the college. The degree and knowledge will be helpful to pursue a good job rather than the comfort of the dormitories experienced during college life.
Finally, on the basis of aforementioned points the director assumed less practical assumptions to build new dormitory area in the college. The college administration has not to be accepted the suggestion without analyse it. The dormitories are not only way to attract the students for admission.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK. better to say: maybe incoming students are from local areas and will be living with their family.
argument 2 -- not OK. need to argue:
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.
argument 3 -- OK
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.0 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 412 350
No. of Characters: 2126 1500
No. of Different Words: 189 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.505 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.16 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.856 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 138 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.6 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.586 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.549 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.108 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, if, look, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, well, as to, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2174.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 412.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27669902913 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50530610838 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94969527815 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.466019417476 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 670.5 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.6964359255 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.7 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.35 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.289311917317 0.218282227539 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0906686196388 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0919068636582 0.0701772020484 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163811585377 0.128457276422 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0834870719322 0.0628817314937 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.0 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.