Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledge that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings, so it can be expected that tourists will want to visit this new building. The income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. Furthermore, such a building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. And even though such a building will be much larger than our current need for student housing, part of the building can be used as office space.
The author of this argument recommends that in order to fund the building of affordable housing for Claitown University’s students, the best way is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. To support his recommendation, he claims that it can attract new students and tourists and consequently income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. And even though such a building will be much larger than our current need for student housing, part of the building can be used as office space. This recommendation is specious on several grounds.
The writer of this argument claims that the best solution to solve Claitown University’s problem to fund the building of affordable housing for its students, is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. This solution cannot be practical because undoubtedly, a famous architect receive an extraordinary amount of money to do it and likely, he receives his money immediately and does not stay for long time. On the basis of this argument, this university does not have enough budget to pay this amount of money. If it is assumed that this famous architect accepts to do it, there is not any guarantee for attracting tourists. Maybe this work of this architect is not attractive and consequently people do not have any motivation to visit these new buildings. Thus, Claitown University’s authorities cannot achieve enough money, approximately equal to their assumptions, to manage their expenses and it puts them in financial crisis. Again assuming it is possible and practical, another author’s claim about attracting new students and donations from alumni cannot be acceptable. It is unanimously believed that students select a university on the basis of the scientific criteria not tourist’s attractions.
Another problem in this argument is about considering extra parts of the buildings for office space. As a matter of fact, if number of students increases sharply, all of these buildings will be used by them and consequently, there will not be any free space to use for office part.
In final analysis, it can be stated that this recommendation is on the basis of a number of assumptions which all of them are challengeable and it is accepted provided that all of the above questions are answered and all weaknesses are removed.
- Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledg 62
- In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommoda 50
- A recent study shows that people living on the continent of North America suffer 9 times more chronic fatigue and 31 times more chronic depression than do people living on the continent of Asia. Interestingly, Asians, on average, eat 20 grams of soy per d 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 174, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...geable and it is accepted provided that all of the above questions are answered and all we...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['consequently', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'thus', 'as a matter of fact']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.243181818182 0.25644967241 95% => OK
Verbs: 0.147727272727 0.15541462614 95% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0886363636364 0.0836205057962 106% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0545454545455 0.0520304965353 105% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0454545454545 0.0272364105082 167% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.122727272727 0.125424944231 98% => OK
Participles: 0.0340909090909 0.0416121511921 82% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.19345155526 2.79052419416 114% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0318181818182 0.026700313972 119% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.104545454545 0.113004496875 93% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0227272727273 0.0255425247493 89% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00227272727273 0.0127820249294 18% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2413.0 2731.13054187 88% => OK
No of words: 386.0 446.07635468 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.25129533679 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43248042346 4.57801047555 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.386010362694 0.378187486979 102% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.295336787565 0.287650121315 103% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.246113989637 0.208842608468 118% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.160621761658 0.135150697306 119% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19345155526 2.79052419416 114% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 207.018472906 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.468911917098 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 49.7561164159 52.1807786196 95% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 20.039408867 75% => OK
Sentence length: 25.7333333333 23.2022227129 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.5948039139 57.7814097925 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 160.866666667 141.986410481 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7333333333 23.2022227129 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.4 0.724660767414 55% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 55.2670120898 51.9672348444 106% => OK
Elegance: 1.61467889908 1.8405768891 88% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.600084106843 0.441005458295 136% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.138833912532 0.135418324435 103% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0818322550874 0.0829849096947 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.551959117188 0.58762219726 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.188493210311 0.147661913831 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.252066556473 0.193483328276 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.185942684048 0.0970749176394 192% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.381060985651 0.42659136922 89% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.106357354034 0.0774707102158 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.384270614357 0.312017818177 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.179451076474 0.0698173142475 257% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.