The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College, a private institution, to the college's governing committee.
"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 80 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 alumnae who answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Keeping the college all female will improve morale among students and convince alumnae to keep supporting the college financially."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The given recommendation claims that Grove College should remain as an all-female educational institution based on the fact that the majority of student respondents and over half of the alumnae respondents were opposed to coeducation. Even though the president and administrative staff who have made this recommendation seem to make a cogent case at the outset, the assumptions that the argument is based on needs to be scrutinized scrupulously before any decision is made.
First of all, the samples of the survey for the students and alumnae need to be investigated in depth. The reason for such a high rate of negative response towards the attempted change in policy could be because the people who are sensitive about the issue were eager to participate in the surveys. Those who are indifferent towards the matter could not have cared to answer the questionnaires, leading to a skewed result of the survey. Therefore, the details of the surveys should be revealed in order to claim that they actually do reflect the opinions of the whole population of students and alumnae. It could be possible that the student government only targetted students and alumnae who have previously expressed concerned about accepting men into the school. Or perhaps the surveys were only conducted for a small portion of the group, which would mean that that they would lack representativeness. If only 10% of the whole student body or alumane group answered to the surveys, it wouldn't be prudent to claim that the survey results actually are the opinion of the whole group.
In terms of the benefits expected from retaining the college all female, the argument assumes that morale among students will improve. However, there is no substantive evidence to support this assertion. For one thing, the college already is an all-female school, which means that maintaing its current status will not bring about any changes. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how the same status quo will stimulate morale among students. Also, the students didn't actually state that they feel morale will improve if the college maintains its current status, so this assumption is unwarranted. It could be possible that admitting men into programs will boost morale even more; because there is no data on how students actually feel when they study with people of the opposite sex, it is unreasonable to conclude that all-female education will better precipitate morale.
This logic can also be applied to the alumnae. The alumnae haven't actually stated that they will increase their financial support if the college retains its tradition in gender composition. As no change will actually occur if the school decides not to accept men, it is highly possible that alumnae support will actually remain the same. Even if the college provides substantive evidence of respondents saying that they will increase their donations, it is possible that these people's donations only comprise a small portion of the whole amount the school receives. Those who agree to accept men could be the ones making the mangnanimous donations, which means that not changing could rather lead to a decrease in school funding.
In conclusion, the argument makes unwarranted assumptions that need to be clarified before Grove College can make the most optimal decision. Unless the details of the sample of the surveys, as well as actual statistical data on expected student morale and alumnae financial support are provided, we cannot claim with certainty that maintaing an all-female education is the better option.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 861, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: that
... portion of the group, which would mean that that they would lack representativeness. If ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 990, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...umane group answered to the surveys, it wouldnt be prudent to claim that the survey res...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 467, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...rale among students. Also, the students didnt actually state that they feel morale wi...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 60, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
... be applied to the alumnae. The alumnae havent actually stated that they will increase...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, however, if, so, therefore, well, in conclusion, as well as, first of all, for one thing
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.5258426966 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.4196629213 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 29.0 11.3162921348 256% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 46.0 33.0505617978 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 58.6224719101 107% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2996.0 2235.4752809 134% => OK
No of words: 576.0 442.535393258 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20138888889 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89897948557 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76279815161 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 264.0 215.323595506 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.458333333333 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 937.8 704.065955056 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.2046143807 60.3974514979 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.181818182 118.986275619 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1818181818 23.4991977007 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.04545454545 5.21951772744 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.129249759717 0.243740707755 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0406117434456 0.0831039109588 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0492722327538 0.0758088955206 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0936503041147 0.150359130593 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.070667159815 0.0667264976115 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 14.1392134831 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 100.480337079 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.8971910112 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.