The following appeared in a report of the committee on faculty promotions and salaries at Eim City University.
“During her seventeen years as a professor of botany, Prof. Thomas has proved herself to be well worth annual salary of $ 50,000. Her classes are among the largest at the university, demonstrating her popularity among students. Moreover, the mopney she has brought to the University in research grants has exceeded her salaryin each of the last two years. Therefore, in consideration of Prof. Thomas’ demonstrated teaching and research abalities, we recommend that she receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to department Chairperson; withourt such a raise and promotion, we fear that prof. Thomas will leave Elim City Hospital for another college.
Prof. Thomas, a well reputed botany professor of Elim City University who served the university for last seventeen years, is known to be very popular among students and the scientific community. Due to her contribution to the University and its economic prospect, a special committee on faculty promotions and salaries has recommended to make her salary $ 50,000 and promote her as the chair of the Botany department. Although the committee was probably correct in recounting her contribution to the University, the committee is too quick to assume that the only reward to her contribution is raising annual salaries by $ 10,000 and promoting her as the department head; it has failed to assay specific details about her interest, preference, university’s economic viability, and so forth.
The Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries assumes that merely providing extra $ 10,000 annually and a promotion as department head would help to retain Prof. Thomas to the Elim City University. However, along with this assumption there is a presumption this proposal by the University will be easily accepted by Prof. Thomas. The committee report does not discuss explicitly about her personal preferences and the taste. The report clearly states that Prof. Thomas has contributed for huge influx of research grant in the university. Clearly, she might have personal preference to be the research head of the university rather than to be the department head and managing the departmental administration. Perhaps, some other university might have offering more than $ 50,000 to Prof Thomas – more than elim city university: in this context increasing the salary and providing merely $ 50,000 annually might not be satisfactory to her.
Similarly, the committee report gives no any information about the economic viability of the University: whether the University is able to pay annual $ 50,000 to a single teacher. The report does not consider other factors like what, if other professors also demanded to raise their salary to increase by same amount. There might have been many senior professors who might not agree to work below the salary of Prof. Thomas. Therefore, in such situation, for University, it might be difficult to run smoothly as today.
Similarly, the report does not provide any germane information about the department head. What might happen if the existing chair is more talent than Prof. Thomas. The report asserts like Prof. Thomas is academically popular and capable of generating research grant, but department head is a managerial position. She might not be a good manager, although she is a well qualified academician.
There are many specific details that need to be discussed before providing extra annual salary and promotion. Closure study should be done on her personal preferences, offering from other universities , if any, and so many other factors. Ultimately, the argument might have been strengthened if report could have given meticulous information about Prof. Thomas, her personal interest, feasibility of the University, and much else.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 356, Rule ID: CURRENCY_SPACE[1]
Message: The currency mark is usually written without any whitespace: '$50'.
Suggestion: $50
...ries has recommended to make her salary $ 50,000 and promote her as the chair of the...
^^^^
Line 1, column 622, Rule ID: CURRENCY_SPACE[1]
Message: The currency mark is usually written without any whitespace: '$10'.
Suggestion: $10
...tribution is raising annual salaries by $ 10,000 and promoting her as the department...
^^^^
Line 3, column 86, Rule ID: CURRENCY_SPACE[1]
Message: The currency mark is usually written without any whitespace: '$10'.
Suggestion: $10
...ies assumes that merely providing extra $ 10,000 annually and a promotion as departm...
^^^^
Line 3, column 773, Rule ID: CURRENCY_SPACE[1]
Message: The currency mark is usually written without any whitespace: '$50'.
Suggestion: $50
...niversity might have offering more than $ 50,000 to Prof Thomas – more than elim cit...
^^^^
Line 3, column 833, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...mas – more than elim city university: in this context increasing the salary and p...
^^
Line 3, column 891, Rule ID: CURRENCY_SPACE[1]
Message: The currency mark is usually written without any whitespace: '$50'.
Suggestion: $50
...reasing the salary and providing merely $ 50,000 annually might not be satisfactory ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 39, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
... Similarly, the committee report gives no any information about the economic viab...
^^
Line 5, column 151, Rule ID: CURRENCY_SPACE[1]
Message: The currency mark is usually written without any whitespace: '$50'.
Suggestion: $50
...er the University is able to pay annual $ 50,000 to a single teacher. The report doe...
^^^^
Line 9, column 201, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...rences, offering from other universities , if any, and so many other factors. Ulti...
^^
Line 9, column 432, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ility of the University, and much else.
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'however', 'if', 'similarly', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'well', 'as to']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.244897959184 0.25644967241 95% => OK
Verbs: 0.144712430427 0.15541462614 93% => OK
Adjectives: 0.100185528757 0.0836205057962 120% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0630797773655 0.0520304965353 121% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0333951762523 0.0272364105082 123% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0983302411874 0.125424944231 78% => OK
Participles: 0.0445269016698 0.0416121511921 107% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.95618819476 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.038961038961 0.026700313972 146% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0927643784787 0.113004496875 82% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0241187384045 0.0255425247493 94% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00927643784787 0.0127820249294 73% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3099.0 2731.13054187 113% => OK
No of words: 488.0 446.07635468 109% => OK
Chars per words: 6.35040983607 6.12365571057 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70007681154 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.405737704918 0.378187486979 107% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.305327868852 0.287650121315 106% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.247950819672 0.208842608468 119% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.170081967213 0.135150697306 126% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95618819476 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 207.018472906 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.459016393443 0.469332199767 98% => OK
Word variations: 52.2462162589 52.1807786196 100% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 24.4 23.2022227129 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.9534666761 57.7814097925 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 154.95 141.986410481 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4 23.2022227129 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.5 0.724660767414 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 3.58251231527 279% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 54.9327868852 51.9672348444 106% => OK
Elegance: 1.60769230769 1.8405768891 87% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.50085669523 0.441005458295 114% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.134450368629 0.135418324435 99% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.112175212136 0.0829849096947 135% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.557306241345 0.58762219726 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.127540405894 0.147661913831 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.191422457773 0.193483328276 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10690446045 0.0970749176394 110% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.397757334248 0.42659136922 93% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.165914621705 0.0774707102158 214% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.326129257955 0.312017818177 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.125277316776 0.0698173142475 179% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.