The following appeared as part of the Dean’s newsletter:
"The University of Wabash is considering a community service requirement for all undergraduate and graduate students. We believe that the objective of any university is to produce well-rounded and charitable members of society. The proposed graduation requirement would be to complete at least 8 hours of unpaid community service per month for a total of 9 months. The Dean’s office will maintain a list of approved local charities on its website with contact information. This is a fantastic opportunity for students to give back to the community and gain real-world working experience. Most importantly, local charities in need will receive the help that they need to continue their efforts."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The author's conclusion that the University of Wabash considering a community service requirement for graduate and undergraduate students with an objective that in return will provide local charities with help to continue their efforts is predicated on flawed assumptions and is insufficiently supported. In order to properly evaluate author's remark based on his observation, More evident information is required.
The author begins by mentioning that objective of any university is to produce well-rounded and charitable members of the society. However, the author's claim is based only assumptions and not a prevalent evidences. We are only given information on such a community service requirement for all enrolled students exclusively by the University of Wabash. The author here presumes that other universities also have a similar objective. Also, well rounded and charitable members are not only those who provide service physically, but it accounts to also those who are knowledgeable enough to help intimately to an organization.
Moreover, the proposed graduation requirement would be to complete at least 8 hours of unpaid community service per month for a total of 9 months. However, the period of 9 months would not be considerate for students who are enrolled into difficult courses. The author here assumes that every student enrolled has similar area of study and his/her learning abilities will not be hindered by enabling themselves to contribute charitably by working at least 8 hours a month. For instance, a student from scientific research background cannot be able to cultivate extra time for charity for his field of study is intense. Therefore, without proper considerations on students' background of study and their ability to spend time on charitable needs, the author's claim cannot be evaluated thoroughly.
Additionally, the author also states that the Dean’s office will maintain a list of approved local charities on its website with contact information and this would be a fantastic opportunity to give back and gains real world experience. However, the latter part of statement is necessarily good for a student, the author with the former part of the statement assumes that students will actually visit the website to access contact information. The students might also work at other charitable communities that are not listed on the website. There is no evidence on how many of the students would agree to this community service requirement? If there was, it would have been easy to assume that students will take this initiative and visit the charities listed on the website. Without enough evidences, the author's claim that such a requirement in the university of Wabash will help local charities is insufficient to evaluate properly.
While, the universities objective to consider such a requirement enabling students to give back to the community and gain real-world working experience thereby helping local charities to continue is a very good initiative only when it provides enough evidences and supporting information that deems the university's success in implementing it. With the proper evidences as discussed in the paragraphs previously.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 495 350
No. of Characters: 2655 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.717 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.364 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.005 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 205 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 173 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 132 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 90 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.449 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.321 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.534 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
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 conclusion that the University of Wabas...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, well, while, at least, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2703.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 494.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47165991903 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71445763274 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06398636165 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.45951417004 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 875.7 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.514666328 57.8364921388 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.15 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.7 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.7 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.294850403552 0.218282227539 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.09591751361 0.0743258471296 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0927859827667 0.0701772020484 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177501358555 0.128457276422 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0600030652009 0.0628817314937 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.3799401198 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 48.3550499002 62% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.74 12.5979740519 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 98.500998004 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.