"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 school 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 that building a new recreational facility will attract future students and benefit the current students is a fair argument. However, the author of this argument does not adequately support his points and makes assumptions that are questionable without sufficient evidence. In order for this argument to be convincing, the author must address his states and unstated assumptions to convince the audience that he is correct.
The first assumption the argument makes is that the enrollment in Tusk University will continue to rise based on current trends. This is a fair assumption to make, as trends can be used to predict the future, however trends are not completely reliable. For the author to depend on an increasing to trend to predict future enrollment in Tusk University, the author will need to analyze what is causing this trend. Maybe Tusk received funding for a new research lab or built a new student center on campus. In these cases, it is likely that enrollment will continue. However, maybe Tusk recently lowered its admission rates or had to lay off a proportion of the math department due to decreased funding. These factors would likely decrease enrollment rates. Thus it is important that the author considers the cause of the increasing trend and any factors that could alter it, if the author wants to cite this as convincing evidence.
The author further assumes that new and current students care about receiving a new recreational facility. It may be possible that the current recreational facility is hardly used by its students, in which case building a new one is unlikely to cause a significant spike in its usage. In fact, if Tusk is lacking in other areas important to a higher education institute such as its quality of professors or its scholarship awards, then it is possible that its students will reject the building of a new recreational facility if they feel that there exist more important areas to improve upon first. Furthermore, the author assumes that new students will be attracted to a new recreational facility. However, if a prospective student feels that Tusk is lacking in areas that are fundamental, then it is unlikely that a new recreational facility will sway him to enroll in Tusk. Thus, the author must ask the student body if it would want a new recreational facility, especially since the student body would be funding this. Moreover, it would also be wise to ask prospective students if they would use the recreational facility to gauge the interest in the facility.
Finally, the author assumes that Tusk University is an appealing school to athletes. Since a recreational facility would most likely appeal to those who are more athletic, it is reasonable to consider their opinion when building the new facility. However, if Tusk has a shortage of coaches or if Tusk had to recently cut some of its athletic funding, it is unlikely that athletes will seriously consider Tusk if other schools are better suited to fit an athlete’s needs. Furthermore, it is likely that prospective athletes will put a lot of weight on the scholarship schools will offer their student athletes. If Tusk offers very little scholarship money in comparison to other schools, it is also likely that student athletes will avoid Tusk. Thus, it is important to consider if Tusk is appealing to athletes.
The author attempts to claim that building a new recreational facility will increase future student enrollment and appeal to its current student body. However, this claim is based on faulty logic that must be addressed to hold true.
Comments
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: 596 350
No. of Characters: 2931 1500
No. of Different Words: 223 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.941 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.918 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.728 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 217 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 175 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 125 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.923 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.559 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.654 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.329 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.523 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.126 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 758, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...would likely decrease enrollment rates. Thus it is important that the author conside...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, so, then, thus, as to, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.9520958084 193% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 13.6137724551 176% => OK
Pronoun: 60.0 28.8173652695 208% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3016.0 2260.96107784 133% => OK
No of words: 596.0 441.139720559 135% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06040268456 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94096258147 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81740687847 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.395973154362 0.468620217663 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 946.8 705.55239521 134% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.4250151944 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.0 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9230769231 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.92307692308 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.381916871793 0.218282227539 175% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129994464786 0.0743258471296 175% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.109418655346 0.0701772020484 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.228537174978 0.128457276422 178% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0702355723573 0.0628817314937 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.62 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.