"A study conducted at nearby Oceania University showed that faculty retention is higher when professors are offered free tuition at the university for their own college-aged children. Therefore, Seatown should institute a free-tuition policy for its professors for the purpose of enhancing morale among the faculty and luring new professors."
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 argument argues the Seatown should institute a free-tuition policy for its professors to enhance morale among the faculty and to lure new professors to come and teach at Seatown. This argument is made with the basis of Oceania University success in increasing their faculty retention by applying the similar policy. This argument is hardly persuasive. The evidence being used to bolster the argument is wanting and the use of assumptions may brings the arguments to fail under scrupulous scrutiny.
The first and foremost assumption being made in this argument is that Oceania University and Seatown is the same and that one polucy that works in one of them should work with the others. Nevertheless, this assumption is not butressed by any evidence at all. Other than mentioning that Oceania University is located nearby, the author does not provides us with any evidence of similarities of characters between the two place.
To illustrate the importance of evidence in this assumption, let us look at how an evidence of quality difference would affect the argument. For instance, if the Oceania University is a very well-known university in the country with a very expensive tuition while Seatown is low-tier university with very cheap tuition in comparison, the argument would be proven very unconvincing. In this case, it would only make sense for the professors to want their children to attend Oceania University and the free tuition will be a major deduction of their expenses. On the other hand, the same thing could not be said regarding Seatown University. This lack of evidence in itself could crumble the argument very easily.
The other thing to be noticed is the purpose of the policy itself. The author claims that the policy should help enhancing the faculty morals and luring new professors. The apparent problem with this claim is the fact that there is no evidence on how the faculty retention caused by the policy in Oceania University correlates with these goals. The increased faculty retention in Oceania University may or may not be related by the faculty morals. Since there is no evidence of the increased morals of Oceania University faculty members, we should not assume that the policy would be able to achieve it. There might be other factors that increase the faculty retention in Oceania University other than the free-tuition policy. If this is true, that the Seatown would only waste money on granting the free-tuition policy without being able to reach its goals.
Luring new professors into Seatown University is also a goal that is not being supported by any evidence being brought up by the author of this argument. This assumption is problematic because with no evidence on how free-tuition would help increase the interest of new professors to join the faculty, the argument would definitely fail. For example, it could be true that this policy would not work if most of the new professors does not have any children or not planning to have any in the near future.
Before Seatown University makes the decision regarding the free-tuition faculty for their professors' college-aged children, they should definitely ferret for more evidence to supports the claim. The lots of assumptions being used in the argument are very wanting and would need to be re-assessed. Without perusing on more evidence, the policy would only bring major loss and grievance for the University.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 405, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...ence being used to bolster the argument is wanting and the use of assumptions may brings t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 345, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'provide'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: provide
... is located nearby, the author does not provides us with any evidence of similarities of...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 345, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'provide'
Suggestion: provide
... is located nearby, the author does not provides us with any evidence of similarities of...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 114, Rule ID: ADVISE_VBG[5]
Message: The verb 'help' is used with infinitive: 'to enhance' or 'enhance'.
Suggestion: to enhance; enhance
...thor claims that the policy should help enhancing the faculty morals and luring new profe...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 170, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...culty morals and luring new professors. The apparent problem with this claim is the...
^^^
Line 7, column 346, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...University correlates with these goals. The increased faculty retention in Oceania ...
^^^
Line 11, column 176, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'support'.
Suggestion: support
... definitely ferret for more evidence to supports the claim. The lots of assumptions bein...
^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 247, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
... assumptions being used in the argument are very wanting and would need to be re-assessed. Witho...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'nevertheless', 'regarding', 'so', 'well', 'while', 'for example', 'for instance', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.255425709516 0.25644967241 100% => OK
Verbs: 0.168614357262 0.15541462614 108% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0651085141903 0.0836205057962 78% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0417362270451 0.0520304965353 80% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0267111853088 0.0272364105082 98% => OK
Prepositions: 0.135225375626 0.125424944231 108% => OK
Participles: 0.0517529215359 0.0416121511921 124% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.72132563757 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Infinitives: 0.025041736227 0.026700313972 94% => OK
Particles: 0.0016694490818 0.001811407834 92% => OK
Determiners: 0.13856427379 0.113004496875 123% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0383973288815 0.0255425247493 150% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0100166944908 0.0127820249294 78% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3426.0 2731.13054187 125% => OK
No of words: 561.0 446.07635468 126% => OK
Chars per words: 6.10695187166 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86676880123 4.57801047555 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.374331550802 0.378187486979 99% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.306595365419 0.287650121315 107% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.204991087344 0.208842608468 98% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.135472370766 0.135150697306 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72132563757 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 207.018472906 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.383244206774 0.469332199767 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 44.8651328371 52.1807786196 86% => OK
How many sentences: 25.0 20.039408867 125% => OK
Sentence length: 22.44 23.2022227129 97% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.2170094469 57.7814097925 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.04 141.986410481 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.44 23.2022227129 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.56 0.724660767414 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 3.58251231527 223% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 53.0995365419 51.9672348444 102% => OK
Elegance: 1.8661971831 1.8405768891 101% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.330401072505 0.441005458295 75% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.145095449054 0.135418324435 107% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0563743653826 0.0829849096947 68% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.607212328894 0.58762219726 103% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.117598782442 0.147661913831 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.144694691363 0.193483328276 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0792571390173 0.0970749176394 82% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.459175827878 0.42659136922 108% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0663571429241 0.0774707102158 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.236632940307 0.312017818177 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0442203754201 0.0698173142475 63% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.87684729064 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 11.0 5.36822660099 205% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 23.0 14.657635468 157% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: This is not the final score. 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.