"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."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The author argues here that as the number of enrollment is growing, new dormitories should by build up by the Buckingham College in order to serve the housing needs to the students. The argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To justify this argument, the author believe that the rate of student enrollment continues over the next 50 years which might leads to the limited space for the students. Also the author expects that the new dormitories will attract the student towards Buckingham College as the off-campus housing might be more expensive to the students. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author’s recommendation. Hence the argument can be considered incomplete or unsubstantiated.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that the numbers of the students over the next 50 years will be double.This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. How can someone just guess the data over 50 years based on the current trend. 50 years is not a short time period, many things will change. There might appear more colleges with high quality and with more capacities. For example, lets talk about my College in Nepal, Golden Gate College, this college was once a famous and many students do get attracted there because of dormitory services. But later after a decade it fails to maintain its number of students as at the same places there were couples of colleges being opened with the similar facilities. Hence the argument would have been much more convincing if the argument was based on practical fact rather than imagination.
The argument readily points out that the students get attracted with the new dormitories in the campus. This again is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any clear correction between students and the new dormitories. Students do come to college to study but not to stay in the new dormitories. So, they give priority to quality education rather not cozy beautiful room. How can some students just get attract to the college because it has services of dormitories? If the argument has provided evidence that the college will bring up more qualified teacher along with the new dormitories then it would have been a lot more convincing to the reader.
Finally, the author notes that the students will face difficult to afford off-campus housing as the rent in the town is incrasing. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author’s conclusion in several critical respects, and raises several skeptical questions. To illustrate further, a different questions arises, how can we guarantee the students will love to have in cheap dormitories? Maximum of students might come from the rich background? The students love to enjoy the freedom outside the college rather than in the dormitory within the college. Without convincing answers to these question, the reader is left with the impression that claims made by the author are more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by way of a reliable research on the data of students and feedbacks from the students. Finally, to better assess the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about how the Buckingham college more better in the future and what weakness and strength of the college are now.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
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: 28 15
No. of Words: 588 350
No. of Characters: 2922 1500
No. of Different Words: 266 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.924 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.969 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.584 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 222 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 180 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.737 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.307 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.473 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.081 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 450, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
... to the limited space for the students. Also the author expects that the new dormito...
^^^^
Line 2, column 618, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ight be more expensive to the students. However, careful scrutiny of the evidenc...
^^^
Line 2, column 750, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...t for the author's recommendation. Hence the argument can be considered incomple...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 115, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: This
...s over the next 50 years will be double.This is merely an assumption made without mu...
^^^^
Line 4, column 731, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ing opened with the similar facilities. Hence the argument would have been much more ...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 485, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...because it has services of dormitories? If the argument has provided evidence that...
^^
Line 8, column 361, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'question'?
Suggestion: question
...ons. To illustrate further, a different questions arises, how can we guarantee the studen...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 162, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'reliable research'.
Suggestion: reliable research
...re concrete evidence, perhaps by way of a reliable research on the data of students and feedbacks f...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 359, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'better' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: better
...mation about how the Buckingham college more better in the future and what weakness and str...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, so, then, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 80.0 55.5748502994 144% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3007.0 2260.96107784 133% => OK
No of words: 587.0 441.139720559 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12265758092 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9222030514 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75006381416 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 266.0 204.123752495 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.453151618399 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 927.0 705.55239521 131% => 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: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.8243652327 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.392857143 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9642857143 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.46428571429 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 5.25449101796 171% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.216317166754 0.218282227539 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0623482340544 0.0743258471296 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0674899596823 0.0701772020484 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129694418533 0.128457276422 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0713786733411 0.0628817314937 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.