At first glance, this passage seems cogent, however, after a thorough analysis of the excerpt, we can find fallacious assumptions and insufficient pieces of evidence are weakening the passage, therefore the argument made in the passage is not as persuasive as it looks. One must critically and objectively analyze the data and proof to support his or her claim.
First and foremost, the author is ignoring the fact if software engineers and data scientists have the best job prospects and salaries when their students graduate from their school. True, some statistics show that software engineers and data scientists are high-paying jobs currently, however, we don't know if those jobs are the best in the future. With the scientific and technological advancement these days, we are living in a world that changes rapidly, making it extremely hard to forecast the future, and thus even if jobs related to information technology are good nowadays, we can't conclude it remains so in the future. Without ruling out this possibility, the persuasiveness of the argument is undermined
Secondly, there is no guarantee that making four years of computer programming mandatory for their students will help them get high-paying programming jobs. Every student is different. Some students may be completely uninterested in programming, and maybe they are fond of mathematics and physics. In such cases, even if they make programming courses mandatory, they are very unlikely to be willing to learn programming and pursue programming jobs. Furthermore, in order to get high-paying programming jobs, students need fundamental backgrounds in the field of mathematics and computer science, thus only teaching computer programming is probably not efficacious and more comprehensive education is required. In order for the School Board to corroborate their argument, they need to investigate the correlations between the educational effect of mandatory computer programming courses and their future jobs.
Thirdly, they are ignoring the cost of educating high school teachers so they can teach their students programming. Since it is a new attempt, and many factors are unknown, it is possible that educating teachers programming itself takes much time and money, making their plan hard. In this way, the school should find any precedent similar cases, in which high schools tried to introduce programming education, and examine the cost and money needed.
To recapitulate my ideas, for the reasons aforementioned, I believe the passage lacks several substantial proof and data to promote their idea of introducing mandatory computer programming courses.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 407 350
No. of Characters: 2184 1500
No. of Different Words: 217 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.492 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.366 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.975 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 136 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 69 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.438 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.41 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.328 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.588 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.137 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 299, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...high-paying jobs currently, however, we dont know if those jobs are the best in the ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 587, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...mation technology are good nowadays, we cant conclude it remains so in the future. W...
^^^^
Line 5, column 409, Rule ID: AFFORD_VBG[1]
Message: This verb is used with infinitive: 'to program', 'to programme'.
Suggestion: to program; to programme
...re very unlikely to be willing to learn programming and pursue programming jobs. Furthermor...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2244.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 406.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.52709359606 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04135633133 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554187192118 0.468620217663 118% => OK
syllable_count: 685.8 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
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: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.3278371773 57.8364921388 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.6 119.503703932 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0666666667 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.46666666667 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
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: 0.237318556244 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0751180585953 0.0743258471296 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0529351704577 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109504210868 0.128457276422 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0609688035024 0.0628817314937 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 14.3799401198 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.3550499002 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.09 12.5979740519 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.