"We recommend that Grove College preserve its century-old tradition of all-female education rather than admit men into its programs. It is true that a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation, arguing that it would encourage more students to apply to Grove. But eighty percent of the students responding to a survey conducted by the student government wanted the school to remain all female, and over half of the alumni who answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Keeping the college all-female, therefore, will improve morale among students and convince alumni to keep supporting the college financially."
The author argues here that Grove college should remain all-female education. To support this argument, the author reasons that majority of faculty members, students, and alumnae opposed co-education. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it fails to mention several key factors, reveals several instances of poor reasoning, and distorts the view of the situation by providing ambiguous data. Hence the argument is considered incomplete or unsubstantiated.
First of all, the argument doesn't explain why the proposal came up. For example, there might have been a Government law passed banning all-female education or decrease in the total number of students, requiring co-education to satisfy the number of new students. If pro co-education is argument is exigent and important, then people opposing co-education cannot be comparable. Hence the argument would have been much more convincing, if it explicitly stated the background of the proposal.
The author also points out that keeping the college all female will improve moral among students and convince alumnae to keep supporting the college financially. This again is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not prove any clear correlation between remaining all-female college and either the morale among students or the amount of donation. First, there is not clear evidence that allowing men would decrease students morale. New male students can energize and diversify the schools. Secondly, salary of adult men is as 50 percent higher as women. So, by changing into co-education, even the amount of support from original alumnae decreases, the overall amount of donation might increase. If the argument had provided study of similar situation where women school converted into co-education, then it would have been a lot more convincing to the reader.
Finally, the author fails to notes any specific figures in the statistic which raises several skeptical questions. For example, how many people actually responded on the survey? How the surveyed proceeded? If there are only 20 people who answered the survey mostly from anti co-education people, then the survey does not give any evidence. Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author is biased so lack substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is not persuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must give clear concrete evidence, perhaps by providing specific data on the survey and method. Moreover, to better check the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about why the proposals were suggested and what are some other benefits when changed into co-education.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 425 350
No. of Characters: 2245 1500
No. of Different Words: 228 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.54 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.282 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.69 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 186 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 144 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.478 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.118 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.739 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.292 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.492 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.063 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 411, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... situation by providing ambiguous data. Hence the argument is considered incomplete o...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 28, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...tiated. First of all, the argument doesnt explain why the proposal came up. For e...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 378, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...sing co-education cannot be comparable. Hence the argument would have been much more ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 547, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[3]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...ry of adult men is as 50 percent higher as women. So, by changing into co-educatio...
^^
Line 10, column 30, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'note'.
Suggestion: note
...ader. Finally, the author fails to notes any specific figures in the statistic w...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, hence, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2323.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 424.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47877358491 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53775939005 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83235667749 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 204.123752495 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.566037735849 0.468620217663 121% => OK
syllable_count: 722.7 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.6580515343 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.0 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4347826087 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.65217391304 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.125137271385 0.218282227539 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0354084117658 0.0743258471296 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0393486276883 0.0701772020484 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0676722821745 0.128457276422 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0371352771916 0.0628817314937 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 98.500998004 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => 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.