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 co-education, 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 co-education. 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 specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
President and administrative staff of Grove College, against the idea of most of faculty members, propose that college gives admission to only women as they did in past century. The conclusion might seem convincing at first glance however, enough evidence has not been provided to bolster the argument.
The first piece of evidence that we would need to evaluate the recommendation is more detailed information regarding the survey. The author pointed out that 80 percent of students voted in favor of all female college, but he did not provide any quantified data. There is some crucial question that their answers are illuminating about the reliability and representativeness of the survey. Firstly, how many students are studying there and how many of them respond to the survey. For example, if the college has 2000 students and only 50 of all students had been surveyed, the study is not representative. Also, it is suggested the author explain about the way he selected the pool of survey. Since, if he chose a group of students with similar idea about the issue, the survey would lead to biased outcomes. Therefore, to strengthen the argument, the author ought to provide more information about the question of survey, quantified data and his approach to select the pool of survey.
Another piece of evidence might weaken the argument is that whether the alumnae depend their future financial aids to the gender of students of college? The author should propose more information about the answer of alumnae and it cannot be assured that even if college gives admission to boys, the alumnae will not pay financial aids. He had better determine how much is their financial aids in aggregate and if they discontinue their support, they college may not get into financial problem. On the other hand, many people might become interested in supporting college financially due to gender equality decision. Consequently, changing to a co-education college may raise financial support for Grove College. Therefore, to champion the argument, the author should discuss more about the amount of current and perspective financial supports.
The author proclaims that an all-woman college will promote students morally. This claim is unfounded and there is no support for this notion and he also needs to describe moral behavior and how it will be improved by separating boys and girls in colleges. Conversely, many studies show co-education has many advantageous effects on both gender. For example, it improves self confidence among students and by relationship between both sexes, they will be familiar with emotion of each other. As a result, these experiences will improve their future life.
In conclusion, the argument has many flaws and jump into conclusion would be haste. To champion the recommendation, the author should provide more evidence about reliability and representativeness of conducted survey of students and alumnae. Moreover, he ought to discuss about financial support in case of all female college and both gender college.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 487 350
No. of Characters: 2501 1500
No. of Different Words: 225 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.698 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.136 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.772 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 190 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 150 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.292 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.127 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.792 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.31 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.497 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.123 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 130, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ailed information regarding the survey. The author pointed out that 80 percent of s...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, conversely, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, then, therefore, for example, in conclusion, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2569.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 487.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27515400411 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69766713281 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85745166183 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.474332648871 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 804.6 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.2514192731 57.8364921388 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 107.041666667 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2916666667 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.125 5.70786347227 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.126811531279 0.218282227539 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0408697846131 0.0743258471296 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0558995187114 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0807810289242 0.128457276422 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0361059113362 0.0628817314937 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.