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 expresses the need for a housing buiding in Claitown University. The university is in need of funds also to maintain the building. However, the facts presented by the author to fund the building are ambiguous and indefinite.
Considering the fact, of appointing a famous architect for building will surely cost more than an ordinary but proficient architect. University has to arrange a large amount of money to built which raises a question, Can university bear extra amount for high profile architect? As university want it to be an affordable for students so the cost covering from it will be difficult. As author has mentioned in his argument that they are expecting tourist to visit this building. But, it raises some question to it. Will tourist visit a student housing building? Generally, tourist have inclinations towards malls, amusement parks or sky scrappers to feel the exuberance of top view. So, author naively reached to a conclusion that tourism will help to recover building cost.
Additionally, author has mentioned that new building will attract new students as well as receive donations from alumni. Although, its better to have a unique gem in your showcase to attract, there are much more viable factors that will affect. Students will not be merely attracted to a university just by seeing living standards. There are factors like study environment, area for research and development, extra curricular activities, exposure to outer world and many more such factors. And coming to donations, an alumni will not reasonably donate to maintain housing building. Donation in upgradation of research facilities and making environment more friendly to study can be expected. And these factors undermines authors argument.
Furthermore, author has mentioned about extra space to be used for office work. But, initially the university is not in requirement for office space. That will be a waste of space, time and money. The argument presented by the author is not convincing enough.
Hence, author needs to amass more information and need to scrutinize the facts. He needs to do a lot of work to make the argument convictive and logically correct.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-01 | Primace | 58 | view |
| 2019-07-09 | liakath96 | 55 | view |
| 2019-07-06 | goelchirag21 | 83 | view |
| 2019-07-06 | goelchirag21 | 83 | view |
| 2019-02-08 | mmgangrade | 89 | view |
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could. 75
- 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 83
- "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 comfortabl 82
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls throughout the country."The surface of a section of Route 101, paved two years ago by McAdam Road Builders, is now badly cracked and marred by dangerous 72
- According to a recent report by our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies act 42
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 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: 354 350
No. of Characters: 1793 1500
No. of Different Words: 182 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.338 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.065 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.746 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 137 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 14.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.781 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.417 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.27 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.483 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.055 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 382, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ost covering from it will be difficult. As author has mentioned in his argument th...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, hence, however, if, so, well, as to, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1853.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 354.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23446327684 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33761313653 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84786815487 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.542372881356 0.468620217663 116% => OK
syllable_count: 583.2 705.55239521 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 22.8473053892 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.3528031265 57.8364921388 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 77.2083333333 119.503703932 65% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.75 23.324526521 63% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.95833333333 5.70786347227 52% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.219647084269 0.218282227539 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.06504040621 0.0743258471296 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0571739565858 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129351850116 0.128457276422 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0709230694973 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 14.3799401198 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 48.3550499002 118% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 12.197005988 72% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.46 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 11.1389221557 68% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
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.