Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by 30 percent. Potential employers, looking at this dramatic rise in grades, believe that grades at Omega are inflated and do not accurately reflect student achievement; as a result, Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University. To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should terminate student evaluation of professors.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In this text, the author claims that Omega University should put an end to students assessing how effective their professors are in teaching. Some arguments are provided to bolster this conclusion but upon careful examination it is revealed that they lack the required consistency to properly constitute the basis of the claimed statement. Hence, more solid evidence is certainly needed to justify the termination of the evaluation programme.
First of all it should be noted that a temporal relationship does not necessarily mean there is a cause-effect relationship between the evaluation system’s implementation (or in a pedantic fashion, that this constitutes a logical fallacy known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc). In order to evaluate whether this causal relationship actually exists one should gather evidence about the real use the students are doing of this procedure, as it is readily assumed that they are. If they are not, the whole discussion is pointless and other reasons should be taken into consideration as culprit for the high grades. Even if they do use the tool with which they have been provided one could not conclude that it’s the reason why the grades have gone up as the implementation of the procedure might have happened together with other projects that were devised to improve the teaching effectiveness of the professors, such as better classroom equipment or higher paychecks. Finally, the tool might be actually effective in providing teachers with adequate feedback so they can improve the way they work; this would certainly undermine the conclusion the author provides. All these points should be properly assessed in order to provide better arguments for the given conclusion.
In addition to the aforementioned caveats another critique that can be made to the arguments that the author presents is that it carelessly assumes that the unsuccessfulness of Omega’s students is due to a fall in interest of the employers towards them. Additional reasons could be held responsible for this. Perhaps Omega University is not teaching up to date content. Perhaps Alpha University is better at what they are doing than Omega University (it certainly would not be the first time that alpha comes before omega anyway, first the alphabet, then the world). Also, Alpha University might have some sort of agreement with the employers that grants its graduates better future prospective. Given these possible reasons, summed up to those addressed before, it is obvious that further assessment of the situation is needed.
In conclusion, the argument is inconsistent as it stands. The stated possibilities should be addressed adroitly, providing better evidence and evaluating those issues that have been treated above. If this is correctly done, the argumentation would be reinforced and become much more persuasive.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-25 | tomlee0205 | 66 | view |
| 2023-05-26 | shubham1102 | 60 | view |
| 2022-10-10 | fangzr2 | 58 | view |
| 2022-08-17 | devansh66 | 66 | view |
| 2022-08-17 | devansh66 | 66 | view |
- Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In deve 75
- Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than 58
- Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall stu 66
- The following appeared in a letter from a homeowner to a friend."Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams Realty is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents; in contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom 66
- The best test of an argument is the argument's ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint.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. 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 444, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ermination of the evaluation programme. First of all it should be noted that a t...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 180, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a pedantic fashion" with adverb for "pedantic"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...luation system's implementation or in a pedantic fashion, that this constitutes a logical fallac...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'anyway', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'hence', 'if', 'so', 'then', 'in addition', 'in conclusion', 'sort of', 'such as', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.214141414141 0.25644967241 84% => OK
Verbs: 0.19595959596 0.15541462614 126% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0767676767677 0.0836205057962 92% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0626262626263 0.0520304965353 120% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0383838383838 0.0272364105082 141% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.111111111111 0.125424944231 89% => OK
Participles: 0.0646464646465 0.0416121511921 155% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.96410002511 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0242424242424 0.026700313972 91% => OK
Particles: 0.00606060606061 0.001811407834 335% => OK
Determiners: 0.115151515152 0.113004496875 102% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0323232323232 0.0255425247493 127% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0181818181818 0.0127820249294 142% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2862.0 2731.13054187 105% => OK
No of words: 449.0 446.07635468 101% => OK
Chars per words: 6.37416481069 6.12365571057 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60321845022 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.396436525612 0.378187486979 105% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.32293986637 0.287650121315 112% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.251670378619 0.208842608468 121% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.169265033408 0.135150697306 125% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96410002511 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 207.018472906 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.52561247216 0.469332199767 112% => OK
Word variations: 60.9880160029 52.1807786196 117% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 24.9444444444 23.2022227129 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 79.1805251028 57.7814097925 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 159.0 141.986410481 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9444444444 23.2022227129 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.833333333333 0.724660767414 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 57.2384310814 51.9672348444 110% => OK
Elegance: 1.31292517007 1.8405768891 71% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.318367262538 0.441005458295 72% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.122051676405 0.135418324435 90% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0779731699122 0.0829849096947 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.532857632305 0.58762219726 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.146253764883 0.147661913831 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.125763919979 0.193483328276 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.080186264929 0.0970749176394 83% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.442007685306 0.42659136922 104% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0921902771959 0.0774707102158 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.223029093287 0.312017818177 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0747697490839 0.0698173142475 107% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.87684729064 44% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => 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.