"To serve the housing needs of our students, Buckingham College should build a number of new dormitories. Buckingham's enrollment is growing and, based on current trends, will double over the next 50 years, thus making existing dormitory space inadequate. Moreover, the average rent for an apartment in our town has risen in recent years. Consequently, students will find it increasingly difficult to afford off-campus housing. Finally, attractive new dormitories would make prospective students more likely to enroll at Buckingham."
The author concludes that to increase the enrollment of students at Buckingham College, the college should build few dormitories in campus. The author line of reasoning is that there has been significantly increase in the number of enrollment and is increasing currently too which leads to the need of new dormitories in future. This argument is not convincing for various reasons.
First of all, an increase in enrollment in college, is based on the questionable assumption that there is a severe need for dormitories by students. However, the author fails to provide any evidence by the students. It is entirely possible that majority of the students enrolling are local residents and therefore they did not need for dormitories. Hence the author generalization is unreliable.
Secondly, the author assumes that there has been rise in appartment in nearby town which leads to difficulty to afford rented appartment. This assumption is unwarranted. It seems equally reasonable to assumes that the rent rates may decline in few years. Moreover, not all students cannot afford off-camous houses, but few might be willing to pay high rents based on thier financial conditions. Hence it is presumptous to conclude that increasing new dormitories will lead to increase in enrollment.
Finally, the author uses circular reasoning flaw. It offers, in place of support of conclusion, a mere restatement of that conclusion. The author provides evidence for the need of housing in campus due to to increase in enrollement. However author concludes that with the increase in dormitories in campus, enrollment will gradually increase besides the fact that enrollment has risen in past.
In sum, this argument is defective mainly because builind few new dorm does not increase the enrollment od students in college. To strengthen the argument, the author must, at very best , provide the evidence of the statistics of enrollment, its academic record, cultural event etc.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 319, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...ch leads to the need of new dormitories in future. This argument is not convincing for va...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 350, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...fore they did not need for dormitories. Hence the author generalization is unreliable...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 320, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[6]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun might seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'little might'.
Suggestion: little might
...ts cannot afford off-camous houses, but few might be willing to pay high rents based on t...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 396, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ts based on thier financial conditions. Hence it is presumptous to conclude that incr...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 203, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: to
...e for the need of housing in campus due to to increase in enrollement. However author...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 234, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...mpus due to to increase in enrollement. However author concludes that with the increase...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 386, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the past'?
Suggestion: in the past
...ides the fact that enrollment has risen in past. In sum, this argument is defective ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 186, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... argument, the author must, at very best , provide the evidence of the statistics ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1660.0 2260.96107784 73% => OK
No of words: 310.0 441.139720559 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35483870968 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99169834582 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 204.123752495 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.516129032258 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 511.2 705.55239521 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.6966800767 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.2222222222 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2222222222 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.44444444444 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
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: 0.15095912877 0.218282227539 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0481591037685 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0529772475155 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0925728079618 0.128457276422 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.053909425057 0.0628817314937 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.45 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.