Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by 30 percent. Potential employers, looking at this dramatic rise in grades, believe that grades at Omega are inflated and do not accurately reflect student achievement; as a result, Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University. To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should terminate student evaluation of professors.
The author concludes that in Omega University, to make their graduate students get job need to terminate student evaluation process of professors. Author uses the evidence that professors were deliberately assigning higher grades to students to get better evaluation from students. However, employers believed that the grades were inflated, and they do not reflect student’s achievement accurately. As a result, Omega graduates were not able to secure job as have the graduates from Alpha University. Even though the argument looks fine but meticulous analysis shows that certain evidence needs to be mentioned to justify its validity.
Firstly, the author implies that professors gave higher grades to students to get better evaluation from them. Although, the increase in marks could be because of increase efforts from professors to get better evaluation from students. If there were such an evidence provided, then the evaluation process would not have any impact on grades. However, there may be some brilliant students who may find it unethical to give higher grades to every student. Such evidence from author would further weaken the argument.
Secondly, the author assumes that by terminating the student evaluation process, it reduces the authenticity of grades of Omega students. However, it might be possible that Omega students are less study oriented than Alpha students. Any such evidence would further weaken the argument, despite based on a false premise that employers are giving jobs to Omega University based on grades. There might be a possibility that employers were seeking students with certain courses which was provided by Alpha university.
Thirdly, the author assumes that there were no significant changes in exam process in the last 15 years, or the quality of students enrolled in last 15 years. However, it might be possible that students enrolled in Omega University are brighter than their previous batches. In addition, there is no such evidence provided by the author regarding the changes in exam pattern or the quality of students which would further strengthen the argument.
Thus, this argument lacks substantial evidence and facts which would play a vital and significant role in recognising its validity.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-25 | tomlee0205 | 66 | view |
| 2023-05-26 | shubham1102 | 60 | view |
| 2022-10-10 | fangzr2 | 58 | view |
| 2022-08-17 | devansh66 | 66 | view |
| 2022-08-17 | devansh66 | 66 | view |
- Fifteen years ago Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors Since that time Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes and overall student 70
- The council of Maple County concerned about the county s becoming overdeveloped is debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development of existing farmland in the county But the council is also concerned that such a restriction by limiting the 60
- Two years ago radio station WCQP in Rockville decided to increase the number of call in advice programs that it broadcast since that time its share of the radio audience in the Rockville listening area has increased significantly Given WCQP s recent succe 55
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 350 350
No. of Characters: 1858 1500
No. of Different Words: 158 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.325 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.309 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.596 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 122 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.444 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.374 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.375 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.438 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 2 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, look, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, in addition, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1867.0 2260.96107784 83% => OK
No of words: 350.0 441.139720559 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33428571429 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32530772707 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59245530141 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 204.123752495 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.425714285714 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 601.2 705.55239521 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 19.7664670659 5% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 350.0 22.8473053892 1532% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 57.8364921388 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 1867.0 119.503703932 1562% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 350.0 23.324526521 1501% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 130.0 5.70786347227 2278% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 6.88822355289 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.296073209404 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.296073209404 0.0743258471296 398% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0701772020484 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168082462576 0.128457276422 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0950061921306 0.0628817314937 151% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 178.7 14.3799401198 1243% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -292.23 48.3550499002 -604% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 7.1628742515 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 141.0 12.197005988 1156% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 15.11 12.5979740519 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 24.38 8.32208582834 293% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 61.0 12.3882235529 492% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 142.0 11.1389221557 1275% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 61.0 11.9071856287 512% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.