“Tusk University should build a new recreational facility, both to attract new students and to better serve the needs of our current student body. Tusk projects that enrollment will double over the next 10 years, based on current trends. The new student body is expected to reflect a much higher percentage of commuter students than we currently enroll. This will make the existing facilities inadequate. Moreover, the cost of health and recreation club membership in our community has increased rapidly in recent years. Thus, students will find it much more advantageous to make use of the facilities on campus. Finally, an attractive new recreation center would make prospective students, especially athletically gifted ones, more likely to enroll at Tusk.”
Write a response that examines this argument’s unstated assumptions. Make sure you explain how this argument depends on those assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions are wrong.
The argument presented is not particularly accurate for the following reasons; it is based on the assumption that building a recreational facility will be the only way to attract new students. It also infers that Tusk university will have double its population due to current trends, as well as assumes that enrolled students will sign up for the recreation club and invariably, increase cost of health. These assumptions render the argument incongruous.
To begin with, the need of the current students as mentioned in the argument is not expantiated leaving that fact vague. Perhaps if it was said that the present students complain about having recreational facilities or that the school is lacking in the area of sports and recreation as evident by the bad performance of the school in competitions, that would have made the point clearer.
Furthermore, the attraction of new students cannot only be based on a new recreational facility. The interest of students differ vastly and basing on that assumption is invalid. If it had a supporting factor that the residents around the school or the population of the state in which the school is located, actively engage in recreation, it would have better supported the idea.
Also, the basis on current trends to result in a double of the school population is not quite right. This is because the source of the research was not mentioned, neither was the authenticity of it confirmed. The current trends viewed now can change at any time due to reasons which include economy, change in interest, and style of living. Increase in recreational club membership and cost of health is not a firm basis either. That could have happened because a lot of people travelled to the place in the recent years for vacation and engaged in recreation. Perhaps it was just a passing trend.
The argument, when viewed superficially, may seem logical but does not present relevant information to support its basis. The need of the students should have been delved into deeper as well as the research conducted on membership of recreational clubs. Attracting new students by building a new recreational facility does not make accurate sense either and that makes this particular argument invalid.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Let's analyze the structure of the statement and argue accordingly:
condition 1:
The new student body is expected to reflect a much higher percentage of commuter students than we currently enroll. This will make the existing facilities inadequate. //maybe commuter students go facilities off campus.
condition 2:
Moreover, the cost of health and recreation club membership in our community has increased rapidly in recent years. Thus, students will find it much more advantageous to make use of the facilities on campus. //those health and recreation clubs in our community may give students discounts;
condition 3:
Finally, an attractive new recreation center would make prospective students, especially athletically gifted ones, more likely to enroll at Tusk. //people may look at other factors too, like: more professors; bigger size;...
----------------------
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: 17 15
No. of Words: 368 350
No. of Characters: 1825 1500
No. of Different Words: 177 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.38 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.959 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.782 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 141 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 103 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.647 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.851 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.471 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.312 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.539 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.041 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 184, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[3]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...nts should have been delved into deeper as well as the research conducted on membe...
^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...akes this particular argument invalid.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, if, may, so, then, well, as well as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1876.0 2260.96107784 83% => OK
No of words: 368.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09782608696 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37987740619 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86911228309 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.494565217391 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 570.6 705.55239521 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.6288686787 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.352941176 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6470588235 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.35294117647 5.70786347227 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.320700662146 0.218282227539 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0959784950467 0.0743258471296 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104543525666 0.0701772020484 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.182119335963 0.128457276422 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0799905715308 0.0628817314937 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.