At first sight, the attempt of the university to introduce a community service requirement for its students seems persuasive, however, the argument has several logical flaws and is based on several fallacious assumptions. One must objectively and critically analyze their data and proof for their propose before making a decision.
Firstly, they are planning to impose at least 8 hours of unpaid work lasting for 9 months for their students for nurturing well-rounded and charitable members of society, however, they provide no evidence or proof that unpaid community service of a long period is conducive to forming well-rounded members and do their student good. Without any statistic data showing the correlation between the formation of students' personality and unpaid community work, the argument remains unpersuasive. Therefore, some scientific experiments and research should be conducted in order to prove the relationship. Moreover, they are ignoring the possibility that such a requirement of unpaid labor can have a negative effect on students' study. Thus, if no positive correlation was found such a requirement would only be detrimental for the students.
Secondly, the passage is based on an assumption that students can gain real-world working experience through unpaid community service, however, almost all work in the real world involves paid. The real-world working experience also involves the experience of receiving wages, and students can fully realize the importance of money through paid work. In this way, the requirement of unpaid labor is quite unreasonable for gaining real-world working experience.
Thirdly, the local charities may not be inclined to accepting amateur students. The passage assumes that local charity would be favorable to students' help in their work, however it is possible that some of the local charities require special expertise and knowledge, making it extremely hard for amateur students who have almost no experience in the field to help their work. Without ruling out this possibility, it is quite likely that students' community service is undesirable for both the local charities and the students.
To recapitulate my ideas, although the propose made by the university seems promising, it is based on several erroneous assumptions, and therefore it is imprudent to introduce a community service requirement before the more detailed discussion. They could improve their ideas by requiring paid community service instead of unpaid community service or shortend the duration of requirent.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 387 350
No. of Characters: 2116 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.435 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.468 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.88 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 172 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 152 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 71 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.8 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.951 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.358 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.628 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.113 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 199, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...their work, however it is possible that some of the local charities require special experti...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 36, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
.... To recapitulate my ideas, although the propose made by the university seems promising,...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, well, at least
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 55.5748502994 76% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2169.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 387.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.60465116279 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95583291707 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.50645994832 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 685.8 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.9867271717 57.8364921388 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.6 119.503703932 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.93333333333 5.70786347227 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => 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: 0.16709130899 0.218282227539 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0628777218656 0.0743258471296 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0432236990689 0.0701772020484 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103740268239 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0440954294457 0.0628817314937 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 14.3799401198 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 48.3550499002 60% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.5 12.5979740519 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.2 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => 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.