"For the past five years, Mr. Charles Schade has been the music director at Steel City High School, and during that time the school band from Steel City High has won three regional band competitions. In addition, the quality of the music rehearsal facilities and musical instruments at Steel City High has improved markedly over the past five years. Because of such successes at Steel City High, the Saluda school board should hire Mr. Schade to plan and direct the general music education programs for the entire Saluda school system."
In this letter, a writer recommends that to success in regional band competitions, the Saluda school board should follow to hire Mr. Schade for planning and directing the general music education programs. To support this recommendation, the steel city high school adopted a similar plan for five years, and during that time this high school band has won three regional competitions. However, this recommendation cannot be accepted as it is in that it rests on some premises all of which can be challenged in one way or another.
The first problem with the argument is that the writer assumes that the steel city high school success because of Mr. Schade. However, there is no evidence to prove that this happen. For instance, maybe the government pays more attention to a cultural than before, so elucidating more budgets to high school for cultural activities such as music. Alternatively, perhaps students of steel city school are adroit in music, or they are played some music instrument before entering the high school, therefore leads to better results in competitions.
Another problem is that the writer assumes that the both of high school are identical in all aspects. Maybe the Saluda high school does not enough budgets to hire a new teacher for music education. Alternatively, perhaps ability and talent of students in the Saluda school are less than students of Steel City school, hence hiring Mr. Schade is not lead to better result.
The third problem is that the writer assumes that things remain same in all over years. Maybe students of Saluda school are more dexterity to take part in national competitions. Hence, Mr. Schade is not the able to preparation students for high-level competitions, so the Saluda school necessaries a teacher with a better resume. The argument has been shown an attempt of Mr. Schade only in the regional competition.
In the final analysis, the argument’s recommendation cannot be taken to be correct, as it was shown in the body paragraphs above. It depends on some assumptions each of which is questionable. The recommendation can only be accepted if the weaknesses already referred to are all removed.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
In this letter, a writer recommends that...
^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n be challenged in one way or another. The first problem with the argument is t...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ads to better results in competitions. Another problem is that the writer assum...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
.... Schade is not lead to better result. The third problem is that the writer ass...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 269, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...on students for high-level competitions, so the Saluda school necessaries a teach...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hade only in the regional competition. In the final analysis, the argument&apos...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'therefore', 'third', 'for instance', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.277777777778 0.25644967241 108% => OK
Verbs: 0.143939393939 0.15541462614 93% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0858585858586 0.0836205057962 103% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0530303030303 0.0520304965353 102% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0126262626263 0.0272364105082 46% => OK
Prepositions: 0.136363636364 0.125424944231 109% => OK
Participles: 0.040404040404 0.0416121511921 97% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.87080713069 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0328282828283 0.026700313972 123% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.123737373737 0.113004496875 109% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0126262626263 0.0255425247493 49% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00505050505051 0.0127820249294 40% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2183.0 2731.13054187 80% => OK
No of words: 356.0 446.07635468 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.13202247191 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.57801047555 95% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.39606741573 0.378187486979 105% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.266853932584 0.287650121315 93% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.174157303371 0.208842608468 83% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.101123595506 0.135150697306 75% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87080713069 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 207.018472906 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.466292134831 0.469332199767 99% => OK
Word variations: 48.1167503489 52.1807786196 92% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 20.9411764706 23.2022227129 90% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.5376189593 57.7814097925 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.411764706 141.986410481 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9411764706 23.2022227129 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.588235294118 0.724660767414 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 3.58251231527 167% => OK
Readability: 47.626569729 51.9672348444 92% => OK
Elegance: 2.1686746988 1.8405768891 118% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.539207394016 0.441005458295 122% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.111018476314 0.135418324435 82% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.071280714667 0.0829849096947 86% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.553626478337 0.58762219726 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.128748655484 0.147661913831 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.225550899329 0.193483328276 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.134520871216 0.0970749176394 139% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.476751737961 0.42659136922 112% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.105688443327 0.0774707102158 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.371763588084 0.312017818177 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0772082799307 0.0698173142475 111% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 10.0 14.657635468 68% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.