The following is part of a memorandum from the president of Humana University.
"Last year the number of students who enrolled in online degree programs offered by nearby Omni University increased by 50 percent. During the same year, Omni showed a significant decrease from prior years in expenditures for dormitory and classroom space, most likely because online instruction takes place via the Internet. In contrast, over the past three years, enrollment at Humana University has failed to grow and the cost of maintaining buildings has increased. Thus, to increase enrollment and solve the problem of budget deficits at Humana University, we should initiate and actively promote online degree programs like those at Omni."
In the memorandum, the president argues that Humana University should initiate and actively promote online degree programs like those at Omni University in order to grow and solve the problem of budget deficits. To support this conclusion, the memorandum mentioned that enrollment at Omni University’s online program increased by 50 percent last year, and at the same time, Omni University’s expenditures for dormitory and classroom space decreased greatly. The memorandum further pointed out that in the last three years, Humana University failed to grow and the cost of maintaining buildings increased. The president’s argument seems convincing at first glance, but its conclusion is based on three unwarranted assumptions that were not supported by concrete evidence.
Firstly, the president assumes that the decrease of Omni University’s expenditures for dormitory and classroom space was directly linked to the increased enrollment in its online program and did not provide any tenable evidence to back up his point. The decreased expenditure may be a result of other reasons. It is possible that Omni University adopted a new way of maintaining the dormitory and classroom space and it turned out to be a smart move. Without evidence indicating the real reason behind Omni University’s decreased expenditure in maintaining its dormitory and classroom space, it is premature to rule out other possibilities.
Secondly, the president assumes that increased enrollment in online programs at Omni university boosted its income. It is possible that Omni University is actually losing money on its online programs. Online programs require significant investment in the infrastructure and it may take years to see the investment be paid off. If the online programs at Omni University are actually losing money and Humana University repeats what Omni University does, instead of solving the problem of budget deficits, it may make Human University's financial problem worse.
Thirdly, the president based his conclusion on the assumption that if Humana University initiates its online programs, they will receive the same success the Omni University is seeing. Without analyzing the academics of two universities and their student body, it is premature to make this conclusion. It is possible that Omni University is famous for its education on math and literature and most of its online programs focus on math and literature related subjects. These programs require a lot of independent studies and attending classes on campus does not have its advantage over attending classes online. However, Humana University is renowned for its Nature Science departments and most of the subjects require students to do experiments in laboratories. If this is true, online programs initiated by Humane University are less likely to be as appealing as the online programs provided by Omni University.
To sum up, the president’s argument is not sound and valid given how little evidence is provided. To better evaluate the argument, it is necessary to provide convincing evidence and a thorough analysis of Omni University’s online program.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 482 350
No. of Characters: 2603 1500
No. of Different Words: 207 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.686 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.4 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.965 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 213 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 172 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 133 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 93 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.1 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.307 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.382 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.58 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2672.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 482.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.54356846473 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68556276237 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08068582647 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.454356846473 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 883.8 705.55239521 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.6404976279 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.6 119.503703932 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.8 5.70786347227 84% => 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 : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.412091813462 0.218282227539 189% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.143745023928 0.0743258471296 193% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.097493800947 0.0701772020484 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.248226339481 0.128457276422 193% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0984118030227 0.0628817314937 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.3799401198 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 48.3550499002 62% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.15 12.5979740519 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.82 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 12.3882235529 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.