The financial planning department of the Fern Valley University cited certain recommendation to the university following a reduction in the enrollments and admission applications. The author quoted that the university lags behind in teaching and adequate library resources based on the survey from students. He suggested to raise funds through campaign among the alumni to expand the range of subjects and the facilities for library. In fact, the author clearly provides a vague recommendation on raising funds for expansion of the university. He failed to substantiate his claim on the suggestion with valid points and reasons.
It is clear from the statements that Fern Valley University was once a renowned educational institute. However, it failed to regain its popularity through improper teaching facilities. This reason that is claimed to have been discovered from the students has no formal survey received and it seems to be merely an informal statement. Thus, the management must ensure the validity of this reason stated by the financial advisor. In case, there are ample resources with an inefficient regiment of staffs then the author's claim on facilities in the campus holds no water.
Furthermore, the author is blatant enough to advise on raising funds through alumni. Is there any assurance of enough funds from the alumni? Will they be able to contribute to the entire renovation? Does expansion and refurbishment bring an inclination in the admission process? It clearly gainsay with the officer's assumptions. Practically, it is not possible for the alumni students to renovate the college. Even though it is possible, there is no clarity on the amount required or the proportion of students who are in the alumni association.
To recapitulate, the plan seems to be appealing to the university at first glance but it lacks reasonable statistics of reports required for a pragmatic implementation. If the above statements are true, then the author's hold on the given issue does not substantiate.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 319 350
No. of Characters: 1667 1500
No. of Different Words: 173 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.226 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.226 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.969 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 132 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 98 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.789 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.845 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.368 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.29 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.29 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.068 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 312, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'suggested raising'.
Suggestion: suggested raising
...s based on the survey from students. He suggested to raise funds through campaign among the alumni...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 291, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'gainsays'?
Suggestion: gainsays
...n in the admission process? It clearly gainsay with the officers assumptions. Practica...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 547, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ents who are in the alumni association. To recapitulate, the plan seems to be ap...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, so, then, thus, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 12.9520958084 15% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1698.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 319.0 441.139720559 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32288401254 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0643591291 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.542319749216 0.468620217663 116% => OK
syllable_count: 539.1 705.55239521 76% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.4435586076 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.3684210526 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7894736842 23.324526521 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.21052631579 5.70786347227 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.205884579408 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0595379685805 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108068141664 0.0701772020484 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116903284502 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0785516133628 0.0628817314937 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.28 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.