The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College, a private institution, to the college's governing committee.
"Recently, there have been discussions about ending Grove College's century-old tradition of all-female education by admitting male students into our programs. At a recent faculty meeting, a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation, arguing that it would encourage more students to apply to Grove. However, Grove students, both past and present, are against the idea of coeducation. Eighty 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. Therefore, we recommend maintaining Grove College's tradition of all-female education. We predict that keeping the college all- female will improve morale among students and convince alumnae to keep supporting the college financially."
The president and administrative staff of Grove college have shared their opinion regarding the coeducation changes, that the majority of the faculty member have agreed to, with the college’s governing committee. Despite the possibility that such coeducation not be beneficial for an institution, several questions should be answered to measure the accuracy of the provided conclusion.
First of all, it is important to clarify the research that was most probably have been done by the faculty member, that has led them to the conclusion that the male students will encourage the number of enrollees. There is a possibility that due to the Grove’s College reputation as a strictly female institution, majority of the male applicants will not be willing to join this college even if such possibility exists. If this aspect has not been included into the faculty member’s research, then their conclusion will be strongly weakened. Beside from this, it will be effective to determine the origin of such proposal as it may cover some major issues that may lay withing the current educational system. If this point will be proven, it might be stated that the proposed coeducation method is unnecessary.
Second of all, it is vital to investigate the relationship between the all-female and level of morale among students. This fact was only briefly mentioned in the end of the recommendation, however, since president and administrative staff claim that keeping the current system will improve such parameters, several questions must be answered. To begin with, since the collage was all-female for a long time, why the student’s morale is not strong enough now? The answer to this question may indicate the internal flows in the educational system that in the end may not at all be related to the main discussion topic. In continuation, the determination of the relationships between the style of education in Grove collage and the financial support provided by the alumnae should be clarified. It might turn out that the collage has already enough of other financial support, so even if the preciously mentioned source will no longer be available for the collage, it will still continue to be well managed from the financial side. In such case one of the main reasons on which the president’s and administrative stuff’s opinion rely one will no longer be valid. Such situation will definitely weaken the drowned collusion in general.
To sum up, there are several flaws in the provided argument that should be illuminated by the series of questions. Another example of such clarification is the question related to the reason of the student’s negative attitude towards the decision of coeducation of their institution from the all-female to mixed. Bearing in mind the possibility that such responses may occur due to the existing fears that might easily be solved, this factor against the innovation might actually be illuminated and there will be less arguments that might prevent the change in education system.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 488 350
No. of Characters: 2482 1500
No. of Different Words: 231 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.7 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.086 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.827 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 186 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 148 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.111 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.543 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.778 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.3 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.3 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.042 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 514, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun arguments is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...tually be illuminated and there will be less arguments that might prevent the change...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, briefly, first, however, if, may, regarding, second, so, still, then, well, in general, first of all, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.9520958084 193% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2542.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 488.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20901639344 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70007681154 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93225890747 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483606557377 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 803.7 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => 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: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.2514102828 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.222222222 119.503703932 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.1111111111 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.55555555556 5.70786347227 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => 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: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.142583635082 0.218282227539 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.052376688968 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0749137807614 0.0701772020484 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106507170617 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0701485291696 0.0628817314937 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.3799401198 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 98.500998004 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.