The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College a private institution to the college s governing committee We recommend that Grove College preserve its century old tradition of all female education rather t

Essay topics:

The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College, a private institution, to the college's governing committee.

"We recommend that Grove College preserve its century-old tradition of all-female education rather than admit men into its programs. It is true that a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation, arguing that it would encourage more students to apply to Grove. But 80 percent of the students responding to a survey conducted by the student government wanted the school to remain all female, and over half of the alumnae who answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Keeping the college all female will improve morale among students and convince alumnae to keep supporting the college financially."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

The president and administrative staff of grove college, a private institution, recommends groove college to preserve its century-old tradition of all-female education rather than a co-education. To support his recommendation the author provides evidences of the students responding to survey, survey of the alumnae, and the financial support provided by alumnae. The author's argument is potentially valid, however, the author should answers the three questions below to support and bolster his argument.
First of all, Was the survey conducted among the students' done by following scientific methodologies? It is possible that the survey was not done scientifically. Were the respondents above the age of 18? Perhaps, the respondents' were below 18 years of age and their answer may not be rendered credible for general understanding of the college. Were the students' surveyed not biased or prejudiced? It is possible that the answers provided by the students were prejudiced and had reservation for some questions. It is also possible that students were duressed to answer some questions as per the plan. Were the questions prepared in a scientific way? It is possible that the questionnaire was prepared haphazardly and questions pertaining to study were only one or two. If any of these are the case then argument does not hold water.
Secondly, Did all the alumnae participate in the survey? It is possible that only few of the alumnae participated in the survey and results are not appropriate. It is possible that the since alumnae are all females who studied in the same environment, they may not want change to that. Did the survey include alumnae from co-education colleges? If the survey included individuals from different kinds of colleges then that would provide us with lucid picture of the benefits and demerits of coeducation, and the decision could be taken with due consideration.
Thirdly, Were the alumnae who participated in the survey only source of financial support? It is possible that there are other alumnae who did not participate in the survey and are providing financial support to the college. Who are the major donors of the college? It is also possible that alumnae who answered in the favor of co-education are the major donors for the college. If any of the above mentioned is the case then argument is seriously undermined.
In a nutshell, the argument is not as persuasive as it sounds. The author should provide answers for all the questions addressed above to evaluate the argument properly because the answers to those questions, if are in support of the argument, can buttress the persuasiveness of the argument.

Votes
Average: 5.5 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 369, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ancial support provided by alumnae. The authors argument is potentially valid, however,...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 628, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a scientific way" with adverb for "scientific"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...r the plan. Were the questions prepared in a scientific way? It is possible that the questionnaire ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 768, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...rtaining to study were only one or two. If any of these are the case then argument...
^^
Line 4, column 46, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ly, Were the alumnae who participated in the survey only source of financial supp...
^^
Line 4, column 380, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...n are the major donors for the college. If any of the above mentioned is the case ...
^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, first of all

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2229.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 429.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1958041958 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55107846309 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0276642626 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.435897435897 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 716.4 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.4629240512 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.16 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.16 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.68 5.70786347227 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => 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: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.153844659635 0.218282227539 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0483108907936 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.114045798678 0.0701772020484 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0934025200474 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101710790701 0.0628817314937 162% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.58 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.01 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 429 350
No. of Characters: 2182 1500
No. of Different Words: 178 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.551 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.086 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.935 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 165 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 140 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.16 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.786 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.48 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.333 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.167 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5