The director claims that building new dormitories would attract prospective students to enroll in Buckingham College. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts, reveals poor reasoning and fails to mention several key factors based on which it could be evaluated. One of the biggest flaw of the argument is that it considers the number of dormitories to be the only deciding factor for choosing a college among students.
Firstly, the director claims that students would be more likely to choose Buckingham college because of its new dormitories. The director clearly does not take into account any other contributing factors, which could possibly enhance the popularity of a college among students. To illustrate, there could be other factors like the performance of ex-students, employment opportunities, quality if the faculty employed in the college. If Buckingham College lacks any of these qualities, students would not choose to enroll just because of new dormitories. Hence, it is necessary to know if there could be any deterrent in the director's plan.
Secondly, the director claims that dormitories should be increased in numbers because higher proportion of students would opt for on-campus housing due to exorbitant pricing of off-campus housing. What the director fails to consider is that if the housing rates of a town rises significantly, it is mostly because of the overall rise in the living cost of that town. In this scenario, the college authorities would face a huge loss if they continue to let their students avail on-campus housing at low prices. However, if the director can provide evidences of government funds, which would make it possible to let them offer low cost housing facilities to students, the argument could have been strengthened to an extent.
Thirdly, the director mentions the fact that the enrollment of Buckingham is growing and they anticipate it to almost double in 50 years. Now that is a quite a long time to predict the outcome and act accordingly. Also, if we consider that presently there are 100 students, there would be around 200 students in next 50 years. And, this simply indicates that the number will hardly increase by 2 every year. Additionally, there is no assurance of the fact that the enrollment will indeed increase. Hence, the plan of building a number of dormitories does not really make sense.
Finally, the director demonstrates a fallacious causality without any substantive evidence to strengthen the stated facts. Without the above mentioned evidences, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not exactly. better to say: maybe students are mainly from locals in the future. They may live with parents.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 415 350
No. of Characters: 2131 1500
No. of Different Words: 207 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.513 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.135 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.822 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 163 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.131 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.552 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.085 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 212, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...t any other contributing factors, which could possibly enhance the popularity of a college amo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, really, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2189.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 415.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27469879518 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51348521516 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91024688694 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.50843373494 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 672.3 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.8119028878 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.45 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.75 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.95 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => 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: 0.228183159183 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0720549043919 0.0743258471296 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0622357224363 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123573446843 0.128457276422 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.084648635864 0.0628817314937 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.