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 author proposes that Tusk university need to build new sophisticated infrastructure. To support this recommendation, the author explains that it would fulfill current students’ desires. The author’s proposal also relies on the central assumption that it would increase the admission rate of the university. To evaluate whether the recommendation is likely to have its predicted result, we must examine several questions pertaining this assumption of the author’s suggestion.
First, the argument readily assumes that the new facility will make enrollment as twice as current rate over the next decade. This statement is a stretch since the author does not provide any statistical evidence indicating the number of students that has been applied to the university lately. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the rate of admission in the last three years or any living examples of other universities applying the same policy.
Second, the argument claims that lack of new recreational facilities is the cause of low enrollment rate. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between building new center and the admission rate. To illustrate, the main problem could lie in industry outcome of graduated students; clearly, job market preparation and career orientation during study period would be the better solutions. If the argument had provided more evidence that how the action might positively affect the current enrollment then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the author promises the improvement would bring more benefits without mentioning drawbacks that could happen. Would the new facility negatively affect financial budget of the university for the long-term? Does the author consider any other options for the short-term because a new building requires much time to construct? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts to support the current conclusion that implementing changes will effectively solve the problem.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 361 350
No. of Characters: 1970 1500
No. of Different Words: 200 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.359 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.457 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.924 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.235 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.916 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.471 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.342 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.588 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.092 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 451, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...y period would be the better solutions. If the argument had provided more evidence...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, if, second, so, then, therefore, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 55.5748502994 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2037.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 361.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.64265927978 5.12650576532 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35889894354 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07710476788 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.559556786704 0.468620217663 119% => OK
syllable_count: 625.5 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.4979814865 57.8364921388 60% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 119.823529412 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2352941176 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.194483516641 0.218282227539 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.068139092629 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0718030959769 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101967491248 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0399699127711 0.0628817314937 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.43 12.5979740519 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.62 8.32208582834 116% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.