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 buil which raises a question, Can university bear extar 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 scarppers 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 upgardation 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.
In short, we can say that the author could not support his argument. He has not supplied any evidence to prove his point. He should have studied similar cases of other college buildings that were designed by famous architects and tourists are interested in visiting and paying to watch them. The author should also have emphasized on the detailed explanation of the financial aspects of the building project. A survey of old students and alumni also would have been a good idea as then we will know how interested students are to make donations.
| 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 |
- "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
- High-profile awards such as the Nobel Prize are actually damaging to society because they suggest that only a few people deserve such recognition. 63
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagre 50
- Most people choose a career on the basis of such pragmatic considerations as the needs of the economy, the relative ease of finding a job, and the salary they can expect to make. Hardly anyone is free to choose a career based on his or her natural talents 50
- The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its heroines. 50
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: 27 15
No. of Words: 419 350
No. of Characters: 2106 1500
No. of Different Words: 217 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.524 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.026 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.689 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 162 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.519 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.58 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.444 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.259 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.462 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.084 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 381, 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, however, if, so, then, well, as to, in short, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2167.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 419.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17183770883 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52432199235 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7852815993 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534606205251 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 680.4 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.3836507936 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 80.2592592593 119.503703932 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.5185185185 23.324526521 67% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.96296296296 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 : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.209608560925 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.059560357964 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0566680537412 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129534507043 0.128457276422 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0707494807446 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 14.3799401198 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.41 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => 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.