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 the campus. Finally, an attractive new recreation center would make prospective students, especially athletically gifted ones, more likely to enroll at Tusk.
The arguments that more students, especially athletically gifted ones will likely enroll at Tusk University may at first seem compelling and even logical at first glance. However, the author builds up on certain unsupported assumptions to leap from an intelligent guess to a fully formed conclusion. Therefore, the argument is flawed, and unpersuasive.
The idea of Tusk University to build a recreational facility is in itself a factor that should promote its 'student-friendliness'. However, it takes too much of a leap to state that the number of prospective new students that plan to enroll in a university will choose Tusk University specifically for this reason. The author has overlooked the posibility that there could be other universities who either have better recreational facilities coupled with a better teaching staff or a better reputation. When a prospective student is confronted by two universities with similar recreational facilities, but with a disparate learning environment, the student will most probably select the university that offers a better delivery of education.
The author believes that the higher cost of 'out-of-campus' recreation clubs will become a precedence for the students to use the new on-campus facilities. Though this reasoning looks logical, it is not necessarily true. Students could opt to choose recreational clubs outside of the university grounds for other reasons such as consistent openning hours throughout the week, distance to the facility from home and limited crowd as opposed to a university recreation facility. To solidify the author's position, he should find evidence through a research prior to concluding that the new recreational facility will be the first choice of students.
While the author expects the attraction of athletically gifted students, he is once more overlooking an important fact. He fails to mention what sort of facilities the Tusk University's new recreation facility has to offer. Students who are inclined towards ccompetitive sports would seek state-of-the-art sports equipment, sports arenas and facilities when choosing an appropriate sports club. Therefore, unless the author can provide evidence of such state-of-the-art equipment or facilities offered by this new recreational complex, it is unreasonable to expect athletically gifted, if not ordinary students to join the Tusk University.
In conclusion, the author's assertion would have been bolstered if he had presented evidence in favour of the claims he has made. However, with inadequate proof, the audience must be skeptical when acting upon this argument. While it is too extreme to call the author's conclusion as untrue, it is safe however to consider it as a mere conjencture; a conclusion based on limited information. After all, the author's conclusion might infact prove to be true, however, not due to the validity of his assumptions, but due to a latent correlation that the author fails to explain or mention in his argument.
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 463 350
No. of Characters: 2477 1500
No. of Different Words: 230 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.639 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.35 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.119 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 197 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 149 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 120 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 81 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.368 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.767 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.737 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.551 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.106 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 268, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to tusk'
Suggestion: To tusk
...n to enroll in a university will choose Tusk University specifically for this reason...
^^^^
Line 17, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...usk University. In conclusion, the authors assertion would have been bolstered if ...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 261, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nt. While it is too extreme to call the authors conclusion as untrue, it is safe howeve...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 406, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... on limited information. After all, the authors conclusion might infact prove to be tru...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, look, may, so, therefore, while, after all, as to, in conclusion, sort of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2541.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 461.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.51193058568 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63367139033 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2443869741 2.78398813304 117% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511930585683 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 794.7 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.8596381028 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.736842105 119.503703932 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2631578947 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.63157894737 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.262796007871 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0830747915796 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0788362314434 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146366172276 0.128457276422 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104007499604 0.0628817314937 165% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.3799401198 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 12.5979740519 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.94 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 98.500998004 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.