The following appeared in a letter from the faculty committee to the president of Seatown University:
A study conducted at nearby Oceania University showed that faculty retention is higher when professors are offered free tuition at the university for their own college-aged children. Therefore, Seatown should institute a free-tuition policy for its professors for the purpose of enhancing morale among the faculty and luring new 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.
The argument that Seatown University should institute a free-tuition policy for its professors for enhancing morale among the faculty and to lure new professors is flawed. Apart from using vague and ambiguous terms, the argument is filled with data rife with assumptions and the sample is not relevant to the entire region.
First, the argument fails to mention whether study conducted at Oceania University is a genuine one. Can the study conducted at Oceania University be extrapolated to Seatown University? The sample of data is too small for us to come to a conclusion that the same methods used at Oceania University to lure professors are sufficient to lure the professors at Seatown University.
Another flaw in the argument is that different professors have different needs. For example, some professors may see money and bonus as a motivating factor. Others may want recognition and appreciation for their work. So, instituting a free-tuition policy for its professors neither retain old professors, nor lure new ones.
Moreover, it is not necessary for all professors to have college-aged children. Some professors may have children who have already graduated from college, while others may not have children at all. Therefore, adopting the free-tuition policy may not prove to be useful for Seatown University.
The argument can be strengthened if a study is conducted at Seatown University to decide what would enhance faculty retention, and lure new professors. The argument can also be strengthened by citing specific needs of the professors of Seatown University and implementing ways for the purpose of enhancing morale among the faculty and luring new professors. As it stands, the argument is flawed.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-08 | Keerthi98 | 33 | view |
| 2019-12-02 | Opak Pulu | 58 | view |
| 2019-10-31 | solankis304 | 63 | view |
| 2019-10-16 | Deepali24 | 69 | view |
| 2019-10-14 | Siddhivinayak Shanbhagd | 49 | view |
- READINGProfessors are normally found in university classrooms, offices, and libraries doing research and lecturing to their students. More and more, however, they also appear as guests on television news programs, giving expert commentary on the latest ev 83
- Young people enjoy life more than older people do. Do you agree or disagree? 89
- An international development organisation, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be p 50
- Some people believe that teaching morality should be the foundation of education. Others believe that teaching a foundation of logical reasoning would do more to produce a moral society.Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns
- The following appeared in a letter from the faculty committee to the president of Seatown University:A study conducted at nearby Oceania University showed that faculty retention is higher when professors are offered free tuition at the university for thei 54
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'while', 'apart from', 'for example']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.289562289562 0.25644967241 113% => OK
Verbs: 0.178451178451 0.15541462614 115% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0673400673401 0.0836205057962 81% => OK
Adverbs: 0.03367003367 0.0520304965353 65% => OK
Pronouns: 0.020202020202 0.0272364105082 74% => OK
Prepositions: 0.117845117845 0.125424944231 94% => OK
Participles: 0.0606060606061 0.0416121511921 146% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.01470588235 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Infinitives: 0.037037037037 0.026700313972 139% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.10101010101 0.113004496875 89% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.03367003367 0.0255425247493 132% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00673400673401 0.0127820249294 53% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1728.0 2731.13054187 63% => OK
No of words: 272.0 446.07635468 61% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.35294117647 6.12365571057 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06108636974 4.57801047555 89% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.411764705882 0.378187486979 109% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.338235294118 0.287650121315 118% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.242647058824 0.208842608468 116% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.191176470588 0.135150697306 141% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01470588235 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Unique words: 129.0 207.018472906 62% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.474264705882 0.469332199767 101% => OK
Word variations: 44.8698240816 52.1807786196 86% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 20.039408867 75% => OK
Sentence length: 18.1333333333 23.2022227129 78% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.8523655517 57.7814097925 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.2 141.986410481 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1333333333 23.2022227129 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.733333333333 0.724660767414 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 51.9568627451 51.9672348444 100% => OK
Elegance: 2.01449275362 1.8405768891 109% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.535875717132 0.441005458295 122% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.183518205238 0.135418324435 136% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.134870767965 0.0829849096947 163% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.625203081351 0.58762219726 106% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.14944779292 0.147661913831 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.224204156141 0.193483328276 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.146625508564 0.0970749176394 151% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.227414621564 0.42659136922 53% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.100795013735 0.0774707102158 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.334740382585 0.312017818177 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.14911852372 0.0698173142475 214% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 14.657635468 89% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
More content wanted. For issue essays, around 450 words, for argument essays, around 400 words.
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.