The following memorandum is from the Media Director of the Athletic Department at Burtsdale University:
“We have decided to recommend that the school no longer offer free student access to University athletic events, regardless of level, sport, or gender of the participants. Our policy in the past has been to sell tickets only to events with significant popularity, such as men’s Division I football and basketball games, and other nationally televised events. Although other sports do not typically sell out, or generate the same level of interest outside the student body, we feel it is unfair to Division II sports and the women’s teams not to charge admission to their events as well. Charging admission to all events is the only way to treat all athletic teams equitably.”
Write a response in which you describe what specific examples or evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and how those examples or evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The Media Director of the Athletic Department at Burtsdale University claims that charging admissions to all events is the only way to treat all athletic teams equitably. He supports this by pointing out that the university charges admissions for events with significant popularity and feels that it is unfair to Division II sports or women’s teams. His jump in reasoning has left multiple assumptions and questions unanswered. The director will need to provide more reasoning and evidence before we can evaluate the validity of his argument.
First and foremost, is this what student athletes want? If the proposed strategy truly has the students’ best interests in mind, we will need to hear from the students themselves. The director should carry out a survey among the student athletes of Burtsdale University and provide the data from that survey to us. If the survey shows that this is a legitimate concern among Division II sports athletes and women athletes, a proposal to address this inequality warrants more merit. Moreover, do student athletes believe that charging for admissions into sporting events truly level the playing field and make athletic teams more equitable? Would they instead feel that more funding and better facilities or equipment would be a better move in the path towards fairness and equitability? The media director of the athletic department needs to provide hard and concrete data to back his claims to ensure that this is a problem that we should address and his proposed strategy is the best way to move forward.
Furthermore, additional evidence needs to be provided on the potential effects of charging admission to all athletic events. Specifically, we need to evaluate whether there will be an adverse effect to the attendance of Division II sporting events and women’s sporting events. As the director himself pointed out, the university sells tickets to events with significant popularity, while other sports do not typically sell out. This fits basic economic theories, as prices go up when demand is high, while prices go down when demand is low. By charging admission to less popular sports, how will this impact student participation and attendance? The most likely scenario to happen is that students will be less inclined to attend such sporting events since they will now need to pay to attend something that was previously free-of-charge. Additionally, how will a decrease in fans affect athletes who play Division II sports or play on women’s teams? If the director can provide data that the student body would not be put off by the ticket charge and that attendance can stay the same, or that student athletes’ mentalities will not be adversely impacted by a low turnout, there will be more merit to his argument.
Last but not least, the director needs to answer a very important question: how will charging for events treat all athletic teams more equitably? While student advocates have made large strides in the past year, most NCAA athletes do not earn a profit while playing for their school team. The director needs to provide proof that students truly believe that charging admissions to all events make teams more equitable. Additionally, the director needs to lay out how the new income will be invested to ensure teams that athletic teams are treated more equitably. Will this additional income be pocketed by the university, or would the income be redirected into the sports that require more funding and investment? If the director can lay out detailed explanations as to how this policy change will make athletic teams more equitable, and show that the income will be used to benefit and fund student athletes from unpopular teams, his cliam will be strengthened.
In conclusion, there are various examples and evidence the media director needs to provide before we can fully assess his policy change. If he can provide more data or insights into student athletes’ feelings, the impact of charging admissions to all events, how the new income will be diverted, as well as whether this can truly fix the inequality problem, we can then give his argument more serious thought.
- A nation should ultimately be responsible for the health welfare and prosperity of its own citizens Write a response discussing your reaction to the stated policy Justify your reasoning for the position you take Explain the potential consequences of impli 80
- The Supreme Court of the United States must be composed in such a way that it accurately reflects the demographics of the country As the highest court in the land it functions as the final arbiter of justice In a multicultural and multiethnic society with 80
- Claim The National Endowment for the Humanities NEH should be funded entirely by private foundations Reason The National Endowment for the Humanities cost the US government over 160 million every year In a period of fiscal restraint and political polariza 66
- Claim Military training strategies such as unit cohesion and drilling are powerful techniques to use in a classroom Reason These strategies allow students to focus on a task and think like a team supporting one another to reach a goal Develop a response t 66
- Scientific theories which most people consider as fact almost invariably prove to be inaccurate Thus one should look upon any information described as factual with skepticism since it may well be proven false in the future Write an essay in which you take 66
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 681 350
No. of Characters: 3402 1500
No. of Different Words: 270 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.108 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.996 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.563 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 257 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 199 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 149 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.222 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.339 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.481 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.314 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.475 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.125 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 86, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'charge'
Suggestion: charge
...wer a very important question: how will charging for events treat all athletic teams mor...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, if, moreover, so, then, well, while, as to, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 34.0 12.9520958084 263% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 25.0 11.1786427146 224% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 52.0 28.8173652695 180% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 76.0 55.5748502994 137% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3486.0 2260.96107784 154% => OK
No of words: 681.0 441.139720559 154% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11894273128 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.10842213422 4.56307096286 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6842653196 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 277.0 204.123752495 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.406754772394 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1075.5 705.55239521 152% => 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
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 11.0 2.70958083832 406% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.6619826728 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.111111111 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2222222222 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.48148148148 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.233503457319 0.218282227539 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0832514726692 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0609762036696 0.0701772020484 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16066361539 0.128457276422 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0596844176729 0.0628817314937 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 98.500998004 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.