According to the memo, the director of student housing at Buckingham College suggests that the college should build new dormitories to fulfill the increasing number of students in the future and also attract prospective students to enroll the school. However, the argument is based on several weak assumptions and it needs specific evidences to consolidate the point.
First of all, the director believes that the number of students will double in the next 50 years, but the assumption is only based on the current trends. There is no other evidences to support this trend, and many factors could influence the real number of students. For example, the school policy to provide the scholarship to students is one, or even the world ranking of the department is another. To predict the trend of the number in the next 50 years, it requires further survey to make this conclusion.
Furthermore, the director mentions that students could not afford the risen rent for an apartment in town in recent years. But, what if the risen rent in town is just temporarily? If the school spends lots of money to build new dormitories and few years later, the renting price fall back to normal price, these dormitories may fail to provide the needs it imagined at the beginning. Advanced survey on the future renting price in the town should be conduct to make this decision cogent.
Finally, building new dormitories cost a huge amount of money, but we cannot assure it is the best way to attract prospective students. There are many alternatives could also attract them. For example, the school can build new buildings of the departments and upgrade the facility in gym or auditorium. Or else, investing new equipment for laboratory to support cutting-edge experiment. By investing the money in other fields could also attract prospective students to enroll in the future. Therefore, the school should consider if spending the money on building new dormitories is worth to meet their goal to attract students.
In conclusion, this suggestion is lack of several evidences to prove the assumption it based on. Further survey needs to conduct to make it reliable.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 357 350
No. of Characters: 1751 1500
No. of Different Words: 167 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.347 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.905 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.642 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 130 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 98 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.833 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.043 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.722 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.557 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.084 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 98, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
...es to prove the assumption it based on. Further survey needs to conduct to make it reli...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, therefore, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 13.6137724551 22% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1803.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 357.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.05042016807 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34677393335 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71936143204 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.47619047619 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 541.8 705.55239521 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.078510895 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.166666667 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8333333333 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.27777777778 5.70786347227 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.302929977703 0.218282227539 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0828669922743 0.0743258471296 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0767592583157 0.0701772020484 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.160818757002 0.128457276422 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0783461168575 0.0628817314937 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.