The author has come up with a decision to build dormitory on the basis of some assumption. Including those reasons, one is to full-fill future need and second is the growing rent of off-campus apartment. Though this argument seems plausible enough to concede with the author, a careful scrutiny reveals it logical flaws.
First of all, depending on current trends, author concluded those enrollments will double next 50 years which will make the need of extra dormitory space. To full-fill the future need, author wanted to make steps now. 50 years is a long time to change many things. If author's decision adapt at present, then excess dormitory will turn into useless. It is good to thing about future need but not to happen instant by wasting money. Budget deals as an important factor to apply that plan. It should be thought that if is there any lacking of students' facilities that they should provide at present time. If the answer is yes, then it must be focused importantly. Priority list is important for any development plan in any College. So, by evaluating priority list, if College's committees think that this is perfect time for implanting this dormitory project, then it may be proceed.
Secondly, author gave reason to bolster this opinion that off-campus apartment rent is increasing day by day which is not affordable to prospective student. Thus, it results dropping enrollment in next years. On the other hand, new dormitory will attract more students. There is little possibility to happen like students live far away from college and use to travelling to reach college every day. Maybe communication system is very good and roads are linked up with sub-urban area. It may reduce their living cost than having an apartment near campus. Therefore, college's dormitory will never affect enrolling student. This perspective view should be evaluated carefully by the College committee.
Lastly, students' opinion about their college facilities should be undertaken in their evaluation. Providing some facilities like increasing scholarship opportunity to poor student, good faculty, variation of subject choices, college's facilities for students like indoor or outdoor game, college's own transport facility (if not available) may capture more students.
In conclusion the author argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by way of reliable detail investigation about this purpose. Finally, to better evaluate this argument, it would be necessary to know the present students' need and should follow in that way.
Essay evaluation 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: 26 15
No. of Words: 415 350
No. of Characters: 2137 1500
No. of Different Words: 233 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.513 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.149 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.644 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 172 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.962 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.624 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.615 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.256 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.445 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.041 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, in conclusion, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2197.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 415.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29397590361 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51348521516 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69355558503 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.568674698795 0.468620217663 121% => OK
syllable_count: 675.9 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.9645466182 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.5 119.503703932 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.9615384615 23.324526521 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.96153846154 5.70786347227 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.184182208264 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0527583697135 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0658838534334 0.0701772020484 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.089494446722 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0546351577906 0.0628817314937 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.