The following appeared in a memo written by a dean at Buckingham College.
"To serve the housing needs of our students, Buckingham College should build a new dormitory. Buckingham's enrollment is growing and, based on current trends, should double over the next fifty years, thus making existing dormitories inadequate. Moreover, the average rent for an apartment in our town has increased in recent years. Consequently, students will find it increasingly difficult to afford off-campus housing. Finally, an attractive new dormitory would make prospective students more likely to enroll at Buckingham
In the above statement, the author contends that due to the predicted increment of the enrollment in Buckingham College and difficulties in finding the affordable off-campus housing near Buckingham college, the college should build a new dormitory to accommodate students. Thus, the new accommodations for the students will attract students in the future to be part of the student at Buckingham College. While supporting the argument, the author relies on numerous assumptions that cannot be taken for granted. Thus, further evidence needs to be corroborated to ascertain the author's statement.
Firstly, the author assumes that the current trend will likely to persist and develop in the future indicating that more students will be likely to attend at Buckingham College. The author supports his or her claim by stating the difficulties for affording off-campus housing that will naturally lead to students finding on-campus housing, stating the need for more of a new dormitory. However, it may not be the case. We cannot be sure of the fact that the current trend will persist. In addition, the town could have been full of residents of family with little kids that those numerous kids would join the Buckingham college in the future, that the dormitories are not more of a need and could even be a waste of space. As such, more detailed evidence is required whether the current condition will likely to also persist.
Secondly, there could be other unpredictable factors that could hamper the trend. The building of new dormitory could increase the cost for attending the Buckingham College which could lead to less enrollment, having few students to cover the cost of the new dorms. Or, the new dormitory could be a burden to students that the off-campus accommodation to become more affordable to the students. Although the average rent for an apartment near Buckingham College has increased, it could be far lower than the cost of new dorms or the average rent could decline due to numerous off-campus housing being competitive to attract more students. Therefore, the benefit of housing off-campus could outweigh the living in a new dorm. If these unpredictable factors are likely to arise, the new dormitory would not be a factor that could attract students in the future to enroll at Buckingham College.
Lastly, the author falsely assumes that students can be attracted by a housing option to enroll in a university. The up-to-date facilities of a new dormitory could act as a fertilizer to attract students, but it would not be the core factor that could make students to join the college. Most students go to college in order to increase their depth and width of knowledge, searching for a good education institution that teaches students well. In addition, the college could be allocating their finance toward the accommodation for the students, that the attention toward the faculty members and the quality of education could be put aside. Then, the enrollment at Buckingham could even decrease and the students could be in search for institutions that pays more attention to education, not the living condition of the students. Therefore, further evidence needs to be corroborated whether the college keeps their full attention to the education as well, in order to make the author's claim valid.
In summary, the author's contention cannot stand valid in its current form. Further evidence pertaining to whether the surrounding environment, conditions will persist, the burden not being allocated toward students for building new dormitories, and whether students can be solely attracted by the new housing option in order to claim the author's statement to be more valid.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-31 | aniketnichat | 39 | view |
| 2019-08-24 | p30kh40 | 33 | view |
| 2019-08-07 | Ghader | 89 | view |
| 2019-07-30 | SOUMEDHIK | 43 | view |
| 2019-06-04 | kavyagajjar | 83 | view |
- The surest indicator of a great nation is represented not by the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but by the general welfare of its people. 29
- Colleges and universities should require students to spend at least one semester studying in a foreign country 66
- 147. The effectiveness of a country's leaders is best measured by examining the well-being of that country's citizen. 61
- 3. Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and su 61
- 2. To understand the most important characteristics of a society, one must study its major cities.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In d 63
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Better to analyze the structure of the statement and argue by order:
condition 1:
Buckingham's enrollment is growing and, based on current trends, should double over the next fifty years, thus making existing dormitories inadequate. //1. it may not double over the next fifty years since it is a prediction; 2. suppose it doubles, students may be from local residents and like to live with parents.
condition 2:
Moreover, the average rent for an apartment in our town has increased in recent years. Consequently, students will find it increasingly difficult to afford off-campus housing. //it doesn't mean it will increase in the future. your argument 2
conclusion:
Finally, an attractive new dormitory would make prospective students more likely to enroll at Buckingham. //your argument 3
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 598 350
No. of Characters: 3036 1500
No. of Different Words: 213 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.945 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.077 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.751 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 231 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 191 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 128 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 82 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.917 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.716 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.708 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.35 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.53 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.121 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 577, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...eds to be corroborated to ascertain the authors statement. Firstly, the author assu...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 17, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...authors claim valid. In summary, the authors contention cannot stand valid in its cu...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 76, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
...cannot stand valid in its current form. Further evidence pertaining to whether the surr...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 339, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ew housing option in order to claim the authors statement to be more valid.
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'well', 'while', 'in addition', 'in summary']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.245801526718 0.25644967241 96% => OK
Verbs: 0.143511450382 0.15541462614 92% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0931297709924 0.0836205057962 111% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0534351145038 0.0520304965353 103% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0152671755725 0.0272364105082 56% => OK
Prepositions: 0.116030534351 0.125424944231 93% => OK
Participles: 0.0427480916031 0.0416121511921 103% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.81734612331 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0458015267176 0.026700313972 172% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.12213740458 0.113004496875 108% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0519083969466 0.0255425247493 203% => Less modal verbs wanted (like 'must , shall , will , should , would , can , could , may , and might').
WH_determiners: 0.012213740458 0.0127820249294 96% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3699.0 2731.13054187 135% => OK
No of words: 598.0 446.07635468 134% => OK
Chars per words: 6.1856187291 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94510247834 4.57801047555 108% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.397993311037 0.378187486979 105% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.322742474916 0.287650121315 112% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.229096989967 0.208842608468 110% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.153846153846 0.135150697306 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81734612331 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 207.018472906 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.377926421405 0.469332199767 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 45.1312693388 52.1807786196 86% => OK
How many sentences: 24.0 20.039408867 120% => OK
Sentence length: 24.9166666667 23.2022227129 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.5462675793 57.7814097925 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 154.125 141.986410481 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9166666667 23.2022227129 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.75 0.724660767414 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 57.1909141583 51.9672348444 110% => OK
Elegance: 1.90647482014 1.8405768891 104% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.444698477958 0.441005458295 101% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.151860214038 0.135418324435 112% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0936411327901 0.0829849096947 113% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.629537268918 0.58762219726 107% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.151413610267 0.147661913831 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.217058540156 0.193483328276 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100009296157 0.0970749176394 103% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.6341251905 0.42659136922 149% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0537675383475 0.0774707102158 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.35350226612 0.312017818177 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0754601983971 0.0698173142475 108% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 11.0 6.46551724138 170% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 14.657635468 150% => 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.