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 author of the passage claims that expanding the dormitories would help Buckingham college not just attract admissions but also help the students afford them at descent prices. I take a position to evaluate the claim made by the author on a slightly different perspective. The position I hold is that building new dormitories are not likely to bring prospective students to enroll at Buckingham nor help them make an affordable place to stay.
Firstly, the author assumes the fact that based on current trends the admissions at Buckingman over the next 50 years would double. I question the authenticity of this piece of information provided. Is it really the case that its likely to have the same trend running another 50 years down the line. What if the priorities of people change? Also, if the adroit and experienced professors are to leave the institution which would very likely toil its reputation. Are the enrollments still going to increase the way its projected. I clearly doubt that idea on these grounds.
Secondly, the author claims that attractive new dormitories would make prospective students more likely to enroll at Buckingham. The author plainly assumes that setting up new dormitories are the only good reason to attract admission. But clearly he is missing out other important factors. For example, when the standard, infrastructure and quality of education are improved, theyspeak the value of the college. So, the author simply does not have a lot of other rudimentary parameters into consideration.
Lastly, the author assumes the fact that students find it increasingly difficult to afford off-campus housing. I doubt this because if the college were in the city, obviously the rent at both dormitories and off-camping housing around the city would be a substancial amount, more likely huge on the students pocket. Generally on such scenarios, students take housings at the country side very close to the city where the rents are way cheaper. So, even if new dormitories are built for students what if they don't get occupied just because the students find an alternate place of stay cheaper and in serenity.
Thus, I conclude stating that the author has not taken into consideration the authenticity of the data that he is claimning for his argument. Also, the author has missed out a lot of other important parameters such as standard, quality and the infrastructure, into consideration. Adding to it, he also assumes that the dormitories provided by the college are the affordable ones where there can be other possibilties near the countryside which could turn around cheaper than them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 509, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ies are built for students what if they dont get occupied just because the students ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 596, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d an alternate place of stay cheaper and in serenity. Thus, I conclude stating...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'if', 'lastly', 'really', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'thus', 'for example', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.229122055675 0.25644967241 89% => OK
Verbs: 0.160599571734 0.15541462614 103% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0835117773019 0.0836205057962 100% => OK
Adverbs: 0.06852248394 0.0520304965353 132% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0428265524625 0.0272364105082 157% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.115631691649 0.125424944231 92% => OK
Participles: 0.0406852248394 0.0416121511921 98% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.88479691418 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0256959314775 0.026700313972 96% => OK
Particles: 0.00856531049251 0.001811407834 473% => OK
Determiners: 0.126338329764 0.113004496875 112% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0149892933619 0.0255425247493 59% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.017130620985 0.0127820249294 134% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2627.0 2731.13054187 96% => OK
No of words: 428.0 446.07635468 96% => OK
Chars per words: 6.13785046729 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.357476635514 0.378187486979 95% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.28738317757 0.287650121315 100% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.207943925234 0.208842608468 100% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.147196261682 0.135150697306 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88479691418 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 207.018472906 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495327102804 0.469332199767 106% => OK
Word variations: 55.2318951221 52.1807786196 106% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 19.4545454545 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.1360725472 57.7814097925 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.409090909 141.986410481 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4545454545 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.681818181818 0.724660767414 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 48.1928632116 51.9672348444 93% => OK
Elegance: 1.41732283465 1.8405768891 77% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.417514298258 0.441005458295 95% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0909004144759 0.135418324435 67% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0687737927625 0.0829849096947 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.557457651149 0.58762219726 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.15281129453 0.147661913831 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.171537475567 0.193483328276 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0674313607128 0.0970749176394 69% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.453979845298 0.42659136922 106% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.023452533468 0.0774707102158 30% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.30620222355 0.312017818177 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0329260593949 0.0698173142475 47% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.82512315271 187% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 9.0 2.82389162562 319% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.