Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by 30 percent. Potential employers, looking at this dramatic rise in grades, believe that grades at Omega are inflated and do not accurately reflect student achievement; as a result, Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University. To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should terminate student evaluation of professors.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The author recommends that the student evaluation of professors in Omega University be eleminated in that it is due to this procedure that the students are being inoridnately awarded grades by the professors. Consequently, the potential employers feel that the students' grades are inflated due to which the students have not been successful in securing jobs as have graduates from Alpha University. However, before the recommendation can be completely evaluated, we would need specific evidences to find out the effects of the recommendation.
Firstly, the author prematurely assumes that the students are being awarded grades more than they deserve due to evaluation of the professors by the students. Though, at first glance, this may seem plausible, upon further comtemplation, one would need further evidences to ascertain that the reason stated is not facial. It could very well be the case that the students are securing good grades because the professors, who are aware of the evaluation by the students, have improved their way of delivery so as to get good rating by the students. Consequently, having exposed to a better way of delivery by the professors, the students are able to better understand the concepts and thus, are able to perfome well on their tests. Hence, if this proves to be true, then the the author's recommendation would not prove to provide the anticipated results.
Secondly, though the author's claim that the students are inordinately given good grades would have been true 15 years ago when this procedure was first started, the author takes the liberty of assuming that this is still the case even after 15 years. Since, the faculty would not have sufficient time to adjust to the new procedure immediately, there is a probability the professors had to appease the students by awarding the grades liberally so as to get good rating and thus, avoid getting removed from the job. However, the author cannot assume it to be still applicable even after so many years as 15 years would be more than sufficient to detect and supress any such malpractices. Therefore, there is very high probability that this would be the case and it would unexceptionably weaken the author's argument.
Moreover, the author fallaciously assumes that the skills that the graduates from both the Universities: Omega and Alpha, possess are the same. It may be the case that the graduates from Alpha University have the skillset that are in high demand in the job market while the gradates from Omega University may possess the skillset that is impertinent to the job market. If that is the case, then implementing the author's recommendation would not prove to be beneficial to the students of Omega University but rather can have an adverse effect as there are chances that the quality of the teaching by the professors can get deteriorated.
Therefore, the argument, as it stands, is untenable as it relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions. In fact, one would be in a better postion to evaluate the recommendation by the author if the author can provide evidence that the above stated scenarios are not true.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 505, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...ts, have improved their way of delivery so as to get good rating by the students. Conseq...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 769, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
... Hence, if this proves to be true, then the the authors recommendation would not prove ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 769, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
... Hence, if this proves to be true, then the the authors recommendation would not prove ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 777, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...if this proves to be true, then the the authors recommendation would not prove to provi...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 445, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...udents by awarding the grades liberally so as to get good rating and thus, avoid getting...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 798, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...and it would unexceptionably weaken the authors argument. Moreover, the author falla...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 413, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...that is the case, then implementing the authors recommendation would not prove to be be...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, thus, well, while, as to, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.5258426966 179% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 21.0 11.3162921348 186% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2621.0 2235.4752809 117% => OK
No of words: 517.0 442.535393258 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06963249516 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.76839952204 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93555088613 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 215.323595506 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.411992263056 0.4932671777 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 834.3 704.065955056 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 30.0 23.0359550562 130% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 47.9668282149 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 154.176470588 118.986275619 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.4117647059 23.4991977007 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.76470588235 5.21951772744 168% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.243474966824 0.243740707755 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0853709788918 0.0831039109588 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.07957685601 0.0758088955206 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141692467023 0.150359130593 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0725149243597 0.0667264976115 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 14.1392134831 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 48.8420337079 84% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.72 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 11.8971910112 134% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.2143820225 125% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.7820224719 153% => 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.