Question authority. Only by questioning accepted wisdom can we advance our understanding of the world.
Wisdom is a fusion of both knowledge and experience, it is the heritage of our ancestors, which describes the evolution of humanity throughout history. Constantly, wisdom is a set of familiar rules, which were agreed upon by the majority. Although wisdom is considered as powerful, valuable and indispensable tool, it is not only questionable but also vulnerable to mistakes, as it is human made. So, I strongly agree with the suggestion, that everything in our world is questionable. Every single information in this world must undergo questioning, to evolve, because of the following three reasons.
The author suggests that breadth of the Classen university is a burden, as it consumes the budget without benefiting students, whom are in deep need of specialty courses instead of courses that are not in their specialty, in order to get hired after graduation. This claim is completely obscure due to the following four reasons.
Firstly, the assumption of expanding the university at the cost of not attending courses of some specialities is ambiguous, as definitely some subject courses will not be as a financial burden due to the availability of professors, venues and laboratories. Thus, the author missed an important clue, which is the identification that either university expansion will take the funds of specific courses.
Secondly, comparing financial costs to time costs is illogical. It is more like comparing spending $100 for a lunch or sleeping for an hour. It is essential for this claim to be true to mention other drawbacks in the universities, such as laboratories of low quality or the need of hiring well-reputed professors. The author is stating the need of time resource, so students are able to study advanced courses, which is completely out of the scope of expanding the university, unless students are going to work and waste their time in it, which is not mentioned.
Thirdly, it is undeniable that Classen university has a problem, that its graduates cannot find jobs easily. Though this problem is not related to changing a study-plan or determining the courses in each speciality. Furthermore, if the expansion of the university would affect such courses, the author could simply mention its criteria, that the university shall invest its time planning for specialised courses for its students rather than expanding the building, which is not mentioned. Thus, the author missed the main possible claim, which is the university prioritising expansion over improving curriculums.
Furthermore, courses outside of subject area is essential. For instance, a software engineer, who has no idea of project management, will not be able to manage a time-critical project. Unlike another, who has a course outside his speciality about such subject, which will be considered as a plus during any interview. Therefore, this claim also is too general to be taken into account. Instead, the author should have mentioned these worthless courses, that make students waste their times.
Finally, the claim has mainly four flaws, it has a vague claim that the breadth of the university is affecting the attendance of students to certain courses, it is comparing money with time, which is uncomprehending, it ignored explicit claims such as the ignorance of Classen university to manage the study-plan and finally assumed too generally that all non-specialized courses are a mere waste of time.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 614, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g expansion over improving curriculums. Furthermore, courses outside of subject ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, well, for instance, of course, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2371.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 450.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26888888889 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6057793516 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01972200503 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493333333333 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 737.1 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 93.1753457827 57.8364921388 161% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.722222222 119.503703932 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.83333333333 5.70786347227 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0247943944291 0.218282227539 11% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.00810760704739 0.0743258471296 11% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0134334302334 0.0701772020484 19% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.013880250986 0.128457276422 11% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00894911215806 0.0628817314937 14% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.