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 writer concludes that Buckingham College should build new housing on-campus because the number of student’s enrollments is increasing, students do not afford to pay off-campus housing rent, and new dormitories might attract incoming students. At first glance, the argument seems reasonable, however, this agreement not only suffers from defects but also it prejudices its conclusion upon several skeptical assumptions, therefore, the agreement is incomplete and unconfirmed. Before the final conclusion,
In the first place, the author assumes that the number of students is going to double in next 50 years, so we need new space to live for students but based on their claim is not credible due to the fact that the writer observed just only current trends. She has to discuss specific evidence to claim the number of students’ enrollment will be increasing in the future. This evidence can strengthen the author’s argument because the college can realize that the number of dormitories is insufficient.
In the second place, the writer exaggerates when she claims that the average rent fee for off-campus housing will increase, so the students do not afford to pay it. However, this argument is not persuasive because she didn’t consider one possibility. Let’s say the number of students increased drastically, and off-housing campus companies rented more houses near the campus. In this case, it is more likely that the rent fee decreases in the future, thus it could be misleading to conclude that the college needs new housing because the rental fee will increase.
In the third place, the claimer points out that the new dormitories might attract new students to enroll the college, but this assertion is not feasible because students decide a university based on fields of study or clubs. To illustrate what I mean, let’s consider the case that a high school student is thinking about some universities to attend. She firstly thinks that her goal of education, so if she wants to be a nurse, she will choose the college which has a sophisticated nursing major. In the next, she will consider the tuition fee and club activities. After these considerations, she might think about features dormitories, thus, the students’ interest in the college for dormitories is law. The argument would be strengthened if she provides evidence that many students look forward to staying great dormitories to choose the college.
To sum up, the author failed to prove sufficient evidence for her argument. Before the summing-up, she should acknowledge that there are many factors involved in this story and undertake an additional investigation to the uncertain pointed out above.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 431 350
No. of Characters: 2195 1500
No. of Different Words: 216 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.556 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.093 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.739 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 167 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.353 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.375 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.357 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.357 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.207 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 513, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nconfirmed. Before the final conclusion, In the first place, the author assumes t...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, look, second, so, then, therefore, third, thus, as to, i mean, to sum up, in the first place, in the second place, in the third place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2287.0 2260.96107784 101% => OK
No of words: 430.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31860465116 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55372829156 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95764311324 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518604651163 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 695.7 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.1269234747 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.529411765 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2941176471 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.1764705882 5.70786347227 178% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.205861439425 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.065432701894 0.0743258471296 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0729325198607 0.0701772020484 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1178110382 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0749472916664 0.0628817314937 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 98.500998004 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.