The argument claims that new dormitories are to be built in order to accommodate the expected enrolled students over the next fifty years. Further, the director of student housing also assumes that prospective students will more like to enrol at Buckingham for low-cost attractive dormitories. Stated in this way, the argument reveals examples of poor reasoning and leap of faith. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that Buckingham's enrollment will double over the next fifty years in accordance with current growth trends. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For example, there might be a possibility that over a period of a decade or two many new or other coexisting colleges flourish and therefore the number of students enrolling at Buckingham will certainly decrease. Moreover, the argument does not provide any raw data for the "current trends" of enrollment, that is at what rate the students are admitting over the years. The argument could have been cogent if it considered a shorter span of time like a decade and provided some absolute values for the previous years data of enrollment.
Secondly, the argument states that affording to house off campus will be arduous as the average rent for an apartment has proliferated in recent years. This is again very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate the correlation between the subsequent years' town's housing prices and future housing prices of campus. The director provides no evidence for the increase in housing prices in recent years and it is probable that the increase is not significant and there is certainly no proof that guarantees the accretion of prices for the next fifty years. Neither the statement provides with the housing rates of on-campus and off-campus apartments. Hence, the claim again proves to have no legs to stand.
Finally, the author claims that attractive dormitories will make prospective students enrol more likely. Attractive dormitories could only be a minor factor in deciding a college and as the author thinks of building more hostels there is a possibility that they would not be spacious enough and hence the whole concept of more admission goes in vain.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and it's therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the director mentioned all the relevant details of current enrollment trends of Buckingham college as well as other competing colleges, housing rates of both on campus and off campus apartments and space available for building new dormitories. In order to assess the merits of a certain decision, it is essential to have knowledge of all contributing factors. As a result, the decision of building new dormitories for the accommodation of students keeping the next fifty years in mind is abrupt and unsubstantial.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 487 350
No. of Characters: 2502 1500
No. of Different Words: 218 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.698 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.138 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.852 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 189 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 148 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.19 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.234 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.526 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.068 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 473, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...s for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is rather weak, unconvinci...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 285, Rule ID: TO_TOO[3]
Message: Did you mean 'too'?
Suggestion: too
...ility that over a period of a decade or two many new or other coexisting colleges f...
^^^
Line 3, column 730, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...d some absolute values for the previous years data of enrollment. Secondly, the ar...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, for example, in conclusion, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2566.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 487.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26899383984 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69766713281 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94497804726 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466119096509 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 792.9 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.5773392368 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.19047619 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1904761905 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.28571428571 5.70786347227 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.221137521339 0.218282227539 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0660256314162 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0707830906937 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129324309155 0.128457276422 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0456009733365 0.0628817314937 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.8 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 98.500998004 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.