The argument claims that new dormitories are to be built in order to accommodate the expected enrolled students over the next fifty years. Further, the director of student housing also assumes that prospective students will more like to enrol at Buckingham for low-cost attractive dormitories. Stated in this way, the argument reveals examples of poor reasoning and leap of faith. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that Buckingham's enrollment will double over the next fifty years in accordance with current growth trends. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For example, there might be a possibility that over a period of a decade or two many new or other coexisting colleges flourish and therefore the number of students enrolling at Buckingham will certainly decrease. Moreover, the argument does not provide any raw data for the "current trends" of enrollment, that is at what rate the students are admitting over the years. The argument could have been cogent if it considered a shorter span of time like a decade and provided some absolute values for the previous years data of enrollment.
Secondly, the argument states that affording to house off campus will be arduous as the average rent for an apartment has proliferated in recent years. This is again very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate the correlation between the subsequent years' town's housing prices and future housing prices of campus. The director provides no evidence for the increase in housing prices in recent years and it is probable that the increase is not significant and there is certainly no proof that guarantees the accretion of prices for the next fifty years. Neither the statement provides with the housing rates of on-campus and off-campus apartments. Hence, the claim again proves to have no legs to stand.
Finally, the author claims that attractive dormitories will make prospective students enrol more likely. Attractive dormitories could only be a minor factor in deciding a college and as the author thinks of building more hostels there is a possibility that they would not be spacious enough and hence the whole concept of more admission goes in vain.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and it's therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the director mentioned all the relevant details of current enrollment trends of Buckingham college as well as other competing colleges, housing rates of both on campus and off campus apartments and space available for building new dormitories. In order to assess the merits of a certain decision, it is essential to have knowledge of all contributing factors. As a result, the decision of building new dormitories for the accommodation of students keeping the next fifty years in mind is abrupt and unsubstantial.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 473, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...s for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is rather weak, unconvinci...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 285, Rule ID: TO_TOO[3]
Message: Did you mean 'too'?
Suggestion: too
...ility that over a period of a decade or two many new or other coexisting colleges f...
^^^
Line 3, column 730, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...d some absolute values for the previous years data of enrollment. Secondly, the ar...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, for example, in conclusion, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 33.0505617978 57% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 12.9106741573 178% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2562.0 2235.4752809 115% => OK
No of words: 487.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26078028747 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69766713281 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94497804726 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466119096509 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 792.9 704.065955056 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 13.0 4.99550561798 260% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.5773392368 60.3974514979 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.0 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1904761905 23.4991977007 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.28571428571 5.21951772744 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0519146618055 0.243740707755 21% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0174200748099 0.0831039109588 21% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0437310059825 0.0758088955206 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0446553042425 0.150359130593 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0687810869579 0.0667264976115 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.8 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 100.480337079 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 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.