The letter from the faculty committee to the president of Seatown University claims that for retaining professors in the University we should institute free-tuition policy. He bases his reasoning on the ground that offering this policy enhance morale among them and also lure new professors to the University. This plan is unlikely to be successful due to flaws in the reasoning and incomplete evidence.
Firstly, the author claims that the faculty retention is higher when among them professors are offered free tuition at the university. This statement is a strech as it take into account all types of faculty. Also, the fallacy is that on the basis of study just conducted at few nearby Oceania University, the author is claiming that it's a viable option. If you have noticed the author is assuming that what is true for the nearby of the Oceania university, same is true for Seatown university as well. This is the biggest flaw on the basis of which the author is deriving an irrelevant conclusion.
Secondly, the author assumes that the faculty retention will be higher just on the bases of one reason of offering free tuition at the university for their own college-aged children. This is again a weak assumption as there might be some other reason that will make the faculty to stay back with the university and give all its best for the progress of the university. Also, even though the policy is instituted what if the child of the faculty is not able to find the course he is looking to pursue. There are several key loopholes that the author has forgot to mention.
Lastly, the author asserts that if this policy comes to action that it can enhance the morale among the faculty and luring new professors. Though this can be one of the factor, however their is no gurantee that this will work for this university. What if the professors are looking for good appraisal, nice working environment. The author cannot use this one reason to assert his reasoning.
Though there are several issues with the author reasoning's with research and clarification, he can stand on his argument. For example, he should have taken into consideration the study near Seatown University and similar courses conducting universities.Should have taken into account more factors for retaining faculties like healthy working hours, salary stats etc.
In a sum, as we can see from above mentioned reasons and examples, the author's assumption is prone to acute reasoning and hence open to debate.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 334, Rule ID: IT_IS[17]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...University, the author is claiming that its a viable option. If you have noticed th...
^^^
Line 5, column 554, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'forgotten'.
Suggestion: forgotten
...veral key loopholes that the author has forgot to mention. Lastly, the author asser...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 186, Rule ID: THEIR_IS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'there'?
Suggestion: there
... this can be one of the factor, however their is no gurantee that this will work for ...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 254, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Should
...similar courses conducting universities.Should have taken into account more factors fo...
^^^^^^
Line 11, column 72, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ove mentioned reasons and examples, the authors assumption is prone to acute reasoning ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, hence, however, if, lastly, look, second, secondly, so, well, as for, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2078.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 418.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.97129186603 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52162009685 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.698373708 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 204.123752495 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.464114832536 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 662.4 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => 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: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.0567509184 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.368421053 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.42105263158 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.343545955942 0.218282227539 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106176202912 0.0743258471296 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.12830901488 0.0701772020484 183% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177396489346 0.128457276422 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.116873219387 0.0628817314937 186% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.