The following appeared in a memo from the director of student housing at Buckingham College.
"To serve the housing needs of our students, Buckingham College should build a number of new dormitories. Buckingham's enrollment is growing and, based on current trends, will double over the next 50 years, thus making existing dormitory space inadequate. Moreover, the average rent for an apartment in our town has risen in recent years. Consequently, students will find it increasingly difficult to afford off-campus housing. Finally, attractive new dormitories would make prospective students more likely to enroll at Buckingham."
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 director of student housing at Buckingham College claims that the university should allocate part of its resources to build new student dormitories. The author bases its argument on the fact that the number of students enrolling at Buckingham is going to double in the next 50 years; furthermore, since the rent for off-campus housing has risen, students will more probably enroll in Buckingham if new dormitories were built. Nonetheless, the logic behind this claim is pretty unsound and the author should build its assumptions more solidly before taking any action.
Firstly, the trends on which the author bases its estimates about the college enrollment are not specified neither in their source nor in their definition. It is unclear from which survey or study does his statement come? If it is actually a survey the author is referencing to, on which data is it based? It is undeniably risky to spend part of the budget in building new dormitories from the results of one survey that spans for 50 years! In fact, enrollment would surely increase in the years, but the college could evolve in different ways over such a long time length. For example, the state might offer additional funding in a particular florid period that the college could use to upgrade its dormitories, instead of spending its own budget. Therefore, it would be much safer to first define the extent of these predictions, maybe assessing them over a shorter time span, before going on with the resolution.
Furthermore, the author also links the need for new on-campus dormitories to the rise of the apartment rent over the last years. This link is too vague to base an argument on, as it is not stated how much the rent has risen. If the shift were contained in the natural oscillations that the housing market has from time to time, then it would be of no concern to the university. This particular index should be assessed with a further analysis of the rental state that will also specify which kind of housing has risen in cost; in fact, if only the penthouses or the large, central flats have become more expensive, but the cheaper ones has remained stable, then again there would be no concern. Students, also, tend to share apartments to decrease the overall housing costs; this is another issue that should be taken into account in a further and more specific analysis that must assess if the rent increase will affect the difficulty to access the university.
Finally, the author bases its last conclusion on the claim that building new dormitories will grant more enrollments from prospective students. This is not a clear statement, inasmuch as not every student needs on-campus housing when applying to a university; maybe it already owns a familiar house or it has the economic capabilities to buy one. Thereby, before stating that, the student housing department should first assess – through a dedicated survey section during the application process – how many students tend to prefer living in the dormitories and also, more generally, what is the current state of the on-campus housing at Buckingham college and if there is something that can be upgraded without spending a large fraction of the university’s budget. The money, indeed, could be allocated to more important targets such as the research departments and laboratories.
In conclusion, before applying its intended solution, the author should perform a detailed assessment of the enrollment behavior during the years and with a much shorter time frame; it should also survey the rental status in the city and answer the core questions cited above, and it also should first assess what is the actual status of the dormitories in the campus and find maybe a more economic way to improve it, while saving part of the budget for more needing departments.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 391, Rule ID: ECONOMIC_ECONOMICAL[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economical' (=affordable, cheap)?
Suggestion: economical
...ies in the campus and find maybe a more economic way to improve it, while saving part of...
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'furthermore', 'if', 'may', 'nonetheless', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'while', 'for example', 'in conclusion', 'in fact', 'kind of', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.239316239316 0.25644967241 93% => OK
Verbs: 0.139601139601 0.15541462614 90% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0826210826211 0.0836205057962 99% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0655270655271 0.0520304965353 126% => OK
Pronouns: 0.034188034188 0.0272364105082 126% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.122507122507 0.125424944231 98% => OK
Participles: 0.039886039886 0.0416121511921 96% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.67228569578 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.025641025641 0.026700313972 96% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.122507122507 0.113004496875 108% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.031339031339 0.0255425247493 123% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.019943019943 0.0127820249294 156% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3833.0 2731.13054187 140% => OK
No of words: 640.0 446.07635468 143% => OK
Chars per words: 5.9890625 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.02973371873 4.57801047555 110% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.371875 0.378187486979 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.25625 0.287650121315 89% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.171875 0.208842608468 82% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.1125 0.135150697306 83% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67228569578 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 301.0 207.018472906 145% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.4703125 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 58.5171281245 52.1807786196 112% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 32.0 23.2022227129 138% => OK
Sentence length SD: 107.550674103 57.7814097925 186% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 191.65 141.986410481 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.0 23.2022227129 138% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.95 0.724660767414 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 57.625 51.9672348444 111% => OK
Elegance: 1.67857142857 1.8405768891 91% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.516892897775 0.441005458295 117% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.143410163219 0.135418324435 106% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0772932791565 0.0829849096947 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.591281181311 0.58762219726 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.164018457259 0.147661913831 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.224683745458 0.193483328276 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.116748438871 0.0970749176394 120% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.550494635821 0.42659136922 129% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0580040903561 0.0774707102158 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.387970829866 0.312017818177 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0762341494497 0.0698173142475 109% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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: This is not the final score. 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.