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 claim seems to be a mixture of over-predictions and consequential reasoning. The statement provides some plausible facts with some exaggeration compelling to affirm the prediction.
First, the claim doesn’t quantify the number of dormitories required. That said, the necessity is heightened by the predicted multitude of students. But the prediction seems to be somewhat over prediction since a prediction for 50 years have been considered where pragmatic approach around 4 to 5 year estimation would be sufficient. Then again, the mention that students will be doubled over next 50 years an overstatement. Moreover, the incline of number of students not properly justified. A general expectation of population growth or an improvement in education systems may pave way to proliferate the number of promising students for college. But such a explanation not depicted to confirm expected scenario.
The rising rent in the locality seems fair enough to conclude that students find it difficult to find off-campus apartments since the observation has taken over recent years. But the claim fails to mention the period of time for the observation. But the increment of rent may result due to an economic crisis. Therefore, lack of details in economic background in the locality fails to sufficiently predict that the off-campus apartment to be expensive in coming years. Therefore, exaggerating the fact that finding an off-campus apartment is a mere unproven statement.
Students tend to concern on the quality of programs provided as a priority than housing apartments. Then said, attraction of new student with new dormitories is fair prediction as student may find it easy to stay near the campus while they are studying but not affirmative.
For aforementioned details, the necessity for new dormitories for housing seems to justified to some extent but not affirmed enough for a larger investment. Furthermore, future prediction has avoided the economy status of the locality and program quality provided by the campus expecting large increase of number of students.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 664, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...romising students for college. But such a explanation not depicted to confirm exp...
^
Line 5, column 211, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...ars. But the claim fails to mention the period of time for the observation. But the increment ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, if, may, moreover, so, then, therefore, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.6327345309 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 8.0 28.8173652695 28% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1766.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 323.0 441.139720559 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.46749226006 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23936324884 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15872022234 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.532507739938 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 542.7 705.55239521 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.8577948926 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.1111111111 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9444444444 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.88888888889 5.70786347227 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0794172325538 0.218282227539 36% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0273556062406 0.0743258471296 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0295234704703 0.0701772020484 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.048353874602 0.128457276422 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0392832890485 0.0628817314937 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.15 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.32 8.32208582834 112% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.