The following is an excerpt from a letter sent by the principal of Greenwood School to the parents of all incoming kindergarteners.
"We have decided to institute a policy of all-day kindergarten, instead of half-day kindergarten, for all students at Greenwood School. All-day kindergarten will help all our students achieve at their highest levels. The classes will be 'tracked', so that average students are together, but high-achieving and low-achieving students will be put together in classes. In this way, the high-achieving students will be able to help pull the low-achieving students up to the high-achieving students' level, so that no student falls behind. The all-day kindergarten classes will cover the same material previously covered in the half-day kindergarten classes, but will go at a slower speed to accommodate learning differences. In addition, the students will receive extra instruction in music, art, and physical education. One of the greatest benefits of the plan, however, is that students will be in a structured environment for longer hours, reducing the numbers of hours that otherwise would be wasted at home or in day care."
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.
In the letter, the principal of Greenwood School suggests the parents that there will be all-day kindergarten instead of half-day kindergarten in order to facilitate the students to achieve the highest results. A number of suggestions are put forth by the principal in order to support his argument. Though some of the ideas put forth seems convincing, there are a number of flaws which need to be introspected in order to make the argument a valid one.
Firstly, there was a comparison among the high-achieving and low-achieving students. However, the basis of the comparison has not been explained. Every person has certain strengths and weaknesses. A student good at writing might not be good at speaking. As an analogy, one cannot expect a fish to fly and a bird to swim. Everyone have their own capabilities. Thus it is not the right notion to assume that there must be only a certain criteria to measure both the sections. However, the criteria is also not mentioned in the argument put forth. In addition to this, how the high-achieving students help the low-achieving ones was not explained by the principal. Had the argument had reasons to explain the basis of comparison and the plan of the curriculum, it must have been a cogent argument.
Secondly, the same material which is used for half-day kindergarten will be used in the all-day kindergarten. It was also stated that the teaching would be slower to accommodate the learning differences. But, there was no mention about the type of material used. There might be a drawback in the material itself which is inhibiting the learning capabilities. If the material was changed, it might help the students in achieving the much higher results. The principal did not mention about the syllabus of the material which weakens the argument further.
Thirdly, there was a claim that extra instruction in other activities would be provided. But, there might be already some students who are taking such courses outside in other institutions during the half-day. The might not be willing to take the course in the kindergarten. Even the price of such activities was not mentioned. If the cost rises, there might be some parents who get their children out of this school and join them in another school. However, no clarification of this point was made which weakens the argument. The principal must have provided further information regarding this scheme to make his argument convincing.
Lastly, the principal alleges that longer hours in structured environment will be helpful. But according to recent study by World Health Organisation, prolonged hours in the schools make children far to their parents to understand the emotions. It states that there must be ample amount of time for the children to spend with their parents. This notion might not be accepted by number of parents which is contradictory to the assumption that the plan will benefit the child. Thus, the author must have provided how the hours would be in his letter to support his claim.
Thus, in conclusion, the author must have provided much in depth analysis about the material used, basis of comparison, information regarding the extra instructions, like fee and how longer the hours would be in order to make his argument convincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 308, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...n order to support his argument. Though some of the ideas put forth seems convincing, there...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 360, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
.... Everyone have their own capabilities. Thus it is not the right notion to assume th...
^^^^
Line 3, column 436, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'criterion'?
Suggestion: criterion
...ssume that there must be only a certain criteria to measure both the sections. However, ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., it must have been a cogent argument. Secondly, the same material which is use...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, regarding, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.9520958084 178% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2739.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 542.0 441.139720559 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05350553506 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82502781895 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8527547359 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.424354243542 0.468620217663 91% => OK
syllable_count: 824.4 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 19.7664670659 162% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.2154592415 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.59375 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9375 23.324526521 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.03125 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.67664670659 278% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.177734588939 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0459263614636 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0908610535633 0.0701772020484 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100031934284 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0746493436635 0.0628817314937 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 14.3799401198 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 48.3550499002 132% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 12.197005988 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.71 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.49 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.