According to an independent poll of 200 charitable organizations, overall donations of
money to nonprofit groups increased last year, but educational institutions did not fare as well as other organizations. Donations to international aid groups increased the most (30
percent), followed by donations to environmental groups (23 percent), whereas donations
to educational institutions actually decreased slightly (3 percent). Meanwhile, all of the
major economic indicators suggest that consumer spending is higher than average this
year, showing that potential donors have ample disposable income. Therefore, the clearest
explanation for the decline in donations to educational institutions is that people actually
value education less than they did in the past.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that
could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can
plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The argument that people value education less than they did in the past may seem logical at first glance given several claims used in bolstering the argument. However, these claims are not sufficient enough to conclude that people actually value education less than they did in the past. However, in order for this argument to be valid, some alternative explanations need to be taken into consideration.
First and foremost, the author fails to present the amount of nonprofit groups surveyed and the amount of educational institution surveyed. With the points made in the argument, it is seen that the author assumes that an equal amount of nonprofit group and educational institution are polled. However, there is no evidence in the argument to support the author’s assumption. Perhaps, it is possible that more nonprofit groups are polled and educational institution which led to the result of less educational institution receiving donation.
Secondly, the writer failed to provide the real values behind the percent figures in the argument. The argument states that donation to international aid groups increased the most by 30 percent and donation to environmental groups increased by 23 percent. Without the real numbers, these values are insubstantiate. For example, if the initial value of these donations are meagre amount, then these percent increase will yield insignificant amount as well. On the other hand, if these donations’ initial amount are prodigious, then the claim made in the argument will be valid.
Thirdly, the author refuse to equate the suggestion of economic indicators that consumer spending is higher, to potential donors having ample disposable income. It is seen in the argument that there is no evidence showing that these potential donors are also the ones refered to as consumers by the economic indicators. Moreover, these donors might be minute part the consumers that is refered to by the economic indicator. Thus, in order to bolster the claim in this argument, the author needs to show the correlation between the indication that consumer spending is higher, and the fact potential donors have copious disposable income.
However, the author could strenthen the argument by presenting the amount of nonprofit groups and educational institution polled. This will resolve the discrepancy of the punctilious amount of nonprofit group polled and educational institution surveyed and will create a lucid view of which organizations receive most donations. Also, the author needs to provide the real values behind the percent figures as these values will indicate the precise change in the increase or decrease in donation. Additionally, the writer needs to provide evidence that the potential donors have ample disposable income as basing this claim only on the suggestion of economic indicator is incongruous.
In conclusion, the argument that people value education less than they did in the past neglects numerous alternative explanation that could seriously debilitates or improve its validity. Unless these alternative explanations are taken into consideration, the argument totally falls apart. Thus, assuming that people valued education less than they did in the past might a major mistake.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-24 | Soumyadip Kar 1729 | 58 | view |
| 2021-02-06 | lydia05025137 | 57 | view |
| 2020-11-12 | yomi idris | 58 | view |
| 2020-10-01 | gksdnrwp | 53 | view |
| 2020-08-26 | smeggo13 | 59 | view |
- Claim Young people s tendency to make extensive use of portable devices like smartphones and tablets has hurt their development of social skills Reason These devices encourage users to form artificial personalities and relationships online rather than ful 58
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the manager of KNOW radio station Several factors indicate that KNOW radio can no longer succeed as a rock and roll music station Consider for example that the number of people in our listening area over fifty y 75
- The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a manufacturing company During the past year workers at our newly opened factory reported 30 percent more on the job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries Panoply produces products ve 58
- Some people believe that traveling to and living in numerous places increases one s ability to relate and connect to other people Others believe that this ability is better cultivated by living in one place and developing a deep understanding of that comm 50
- According to an independent poll of 200 charitable organizations overall donations of money to nonprofit groups increased last year but educational institutions did not fare as well as other organizations Donations to international aid groups increased th 58
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 503 350
No. of Characters: 2679 1500
No. of Different Words: 200 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.736 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.326 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.768 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 217 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 154 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 116 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.87 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.096 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.696 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.59 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, well, for example, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 38.0 16.3942115768 232% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2752.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 503.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47117296223 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73578520332 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87215455104 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.41351888668 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 867.6 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.1388865751 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.652173913 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8695652174 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.60869565217 5.70786347227 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.195508685374 0.218282227539 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.063902082845 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0812524657172 0.0701772020484 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104482198595 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0794271981943 0.0628817314937 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.