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 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 alumni who answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Keeping the college all-female, therefore, will improve morale among students and convince alumni to keep supporting the college financially."
This passage claims that keeping the Grove college all-female will improve morale among students and inspire alumni to keep financially support relying on survey between student and alumni. This reasoning has several flaw and, therefore, is not convincing. The logic of the argument is compromised, because the author fails to mention some important information, uses incorrect analogy in the passage, suggests groundless cause-effect reasoning.
First of all, the author claims that keeping the college all-female, therefore, will improve morale among students. When making such a statement, the author assumes that moral can form and support by absent of men. Indeed the author’s argumentation can seem logical at first glance.
However, the author fails to consider that moral it is not only about women and men, unmoral, in author’s opinion, situation can happen and between two women. Therefore, the author’s argument is doubtful because it has several flaw in reasoning. If the author had provided more relevant information, his argument would have been more convincing.
Second, the argument points out that eighty percent of the students responding to a survey conducted wanted the school to remain all female, and over half of the alumni who answered a survey opposed co-education. Again, this point may seem reasonable and justified to inattentive reader. Nevertheless, a careful analysis reveals a major weakness in the author’s argument. The author relies on unrepresentative statistic. This problem could have been avoided if the author had mention that how many people exactly took part in surveys and their answers in percentage.
Finally, the author suggests that keeping the college all-female will convince alumni to keep supporting. However, it may be the case that supporting of alumni depends om many other factors, for example economic situation in country and world. But the author totally ignores to consider such a scenario in the passage. This problem could have been avoided if the author had provided comprehensive analysis of all fact and factors relevant to the matter.
In conclusion, the argument contains several logical inconsistencies: relying on a potentially unrepresentative statistical sample, drawing a questionable analogy, omission of important facts. The author’s reasoning, therefore, is doubtful and hardly convincing.
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 358 350
No. of Characters: 1953 1500
No. of Different Words: 178 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.35 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.455 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.808 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 174 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 134 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.9 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.602 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.364 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.572 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 210, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun flaw seems to be countable; consider using: 'several flaws'.
Suggestion: several flaws
... student and alumni. This reasoning has several flaw and, therefore, is not convincing. The ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 299, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he logic of the argument is compromised, because the author fails to mention some...
^^
Line 5, column 216, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Indeed,
... can form and support by absent of men. Indeed the author's argumentation can see...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 230, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun flaw seems to be countable; consider using: 'several flaws'.
Suggestion: several flaws
...s;s argument is doubtful because it has several flaw in reasoning. If the author had provide...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 184, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d over half of the alumni who answered a survey opposed co-education. Again, thi...
^^
Line 11, column 192, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...alf of the alumni who answered a survey opposed co-education. Again, this point ...
^^
Line 11, column 575, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...urveys and their answers in percentage. Finally, the author suggests that keepi...
^^^^^^^
Line 15, column 34, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... Finally, the author suggests that keeping the college all-female will conv...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2056.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 358.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.74301675978 5.12650576532 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34981470047 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0528055514 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.522346368715 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 634.5 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => 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: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.0691169047 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.8 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.8 5.70786347227 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.0543898411878 0.218282227539 25% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0177240534701 0.0743258471296 24% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0371016550387 0.0701772020484 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.033204847364 0.128457276422 26% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.031019269114 0.0628817314937 49% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 48.3550499002 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.72 12.5979740519 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.89 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.