The following is an excerpt from a speech given to the School Board about a change to the curriculum:
"Because the future will be dominated by technology, we must make four years of computer programming mandatory for all high school students. If our students take these classes, they’ll all be able to get high-paying programming jobs and lead fulfilling lives because software engineers and data scientists have the best job prospects and salaries. Therefore, we must educate our students so they can secure these kinds of jobs. Even if they pursue other careers, programming will still benefit them, given that all industries are becoming more technological."
In the given excrept from a speech given to the School Board, the speecher argues that the school need to change its curriculum. The author enumerates several reasons why the school should mandate technology courses. Firstly, the future will be dominated by technology, so students are required to take the courses for future preparedness. Also, jobs such contains many technologies are the best prospects and salaries, and even if students do not want to pursue other fields, they are going to beneficiary from programming courses since all industries are becoming more full of advanced technologies. Even though the author sounds plausible, copious logical flaws are founded, and the speech needs to be revised in order to attain a higher desirable degree.
The first point the passage mentioned is the future will be dominated by technology and students need to prepare for it. However, no one can predict the future precisly and we cannot be assured to assert that the future will become noticeably adavanced with technologies. The current days, the trends are extremely mercurial and verstaile; the author should not make future prediciton because it can be harmful. Also, miniscule knowledge of technology, still, are going to allow students to live their lives unless they are going to pursue careers for software engineers and data scientists. As a result, four years of computer programming is not necessary for every student.
In addition, the author argument can be deleterious by degrading other fields. The passage is ambivlent and some people can conlude that only software engineers and data scientist are going to be the best job in the future. Even more, the author should maintain the arugment that these two jobs are going to have the best prospects with higher salaries. Since the modern society changes everything rapidly, prospects of jobs related to technologies can be declined. Or, since many students majored in IT fields, the fields can become red ocean all of sudden, and it is not attractive major anymore. The programming courses should be elective courses so that only students who are interested in can take courses, not mandate all students.
Lastly, all careers are not going to need same level of technology knowledge as it requires within soft engineers and data scientis. Most jobs will do not require sophisticated programming education. The author should aware the in real world, imponderous number of jobs are existed, and not every job require advanced IT. For example, if one student is hired from a company which mainly for cleaning, why the student is needed to take all programming courses for four years? It can be true that students require to have some knowledge, but it is not true that students need to take four year of computer programming.
To sum up, the claim based on thses points is not trustworthy enough to deliver strong argument. To engender more pellucid assertation, the author should elucidate all inflammatory arguments.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 17 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 486 350
No. of Characters: 2443 1500
No. of Different Words: 223 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.695 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.027 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.612 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 194 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 137 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.13 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.81 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.522 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.305 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.494 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.073 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, so, still, for example, in addition, as a result, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.9520958084 178% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2512.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 486.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16872427984 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69525374022 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71447765972 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.471193415638 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 781.2 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.2711960997 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.217391304 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1304347826 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.65217391304 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.339598846818 0.218282227539 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101222417348 0.0743258471296 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0871984140591 0.0701772020484 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.186369874326 0.128457276422 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.110975412009 0.0628817314937 176% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.