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.
In the given letter, the faculty committee recommends that the Seatown Univeristy must institute a free-tuition policy for the faculty's children, to enhance morale among faculty and attract new professors. The committee has arrived on this conclusion based on the premise of a study conducted at Oceania University which asserts higher faculty retention through such a policy. The conclusion drawn by the committee might hold water, it rests on several unfounded assumptions that, if not substantiated, dramatically weakens the persuasiveness of the argument. Before we could determine to accept or reject the given recommendations, the following peices of evidence must be assessed.
First, the committee cites the study of Oceania Universiry. Is the study conducted scientifically? What was the sample size? When was it conducted? What methodoly was induced to conduct the study?However, the scope and validity of the study is unclear. It is probable that the sample of the study maynot have been the representative of the whole faculty of the University. It is highly likely that the study would have been conducted a while ago. For instance, what could the trend of faculty in 1990s cannot be attributed to the faculty of 2020. Also, the wording of the study is vague and ambiguous. The author fails to provide data regarding the supposedly 'higher' faculty retention at the University. Unless the data is furnish, the scope and reliability of the study cannot be verified. If either of the above has merit, then the argument is weakened.
Furthermore, are the Seatown University and Oceania University comparable? The author assumes that they are rougly comparable and what attributes to one, also applies to another one. However, this might not be the case. It is possible these univerisities are disparetly different and cannot be construed as same. The author need to provide whether the demographics of both universities. Is financial status of both the same? Is reputation and ranking of both comparable. It is higly likely that both the universities digress regarding funding. Perhaps, Oceania recieves tremendous funding from the industry and thus afford such a policy. Whereas Seatown caters limited funding. If the above is true, then the conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.
Finally, Are there other factors which could invigorate higher faculty retentions? It is possible to inculcate a plethora of other ways to enhance morale of faculty and lure new professors. Perhaps, surprise increments and bonus might increase the morale of the faculty. Other way might include awards and regonitions, ecursions trips for team bonding etc.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. The committeefails to furnish the pieces of evidences stated above to bolster their claim. Also, they fail to develop an efficient anology between free-tuition policy and faculty retention. If the committee may provide the evidences stated above and perhaps, conduct a scientific study regarding factors pertaining to faculty retentions, then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the given argument.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 35 15
No. of Words: 504 350
No. of Characters: 2656 1500
No. of Different Words: 234 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.738 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.27 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.889 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 209 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 170 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 106 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 81 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 14.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.12 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.543 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.242 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.425 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.07 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 197, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: However
...hodoly was induced to conduct the study?However, the scope and validity of the study is...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 494, Rule ID: IN_1990s[1]
Message: The article is probably missing here: 'in the 1990s'.
Suggestion: in the 1990s
...stance, what could the trend of faculty in 1990s cannot be attributed to the faculty of ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 724, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'furnished'.
Suggestion: furnished
...n at the University. Unless the data is furnish, the scope and reliability of the study...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 771, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., the scope and reliability of the study cannot be verified. If either of the abo...
^^
Line 5, column 639, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whereas” 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.
...industry and thus afford such a policy. Whereas Seatown caters limited funding. If the ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, so, then, thus, whereas, while, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2731.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 503.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42942345924 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73578520332 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0170084907 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.48111332008 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 883.8 705.55239521 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 35.0 19.7664670659 177% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 22.8473053892 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.9665447583 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.0285714286 119.503703932 65% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.3714285714 23.324526521 62% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.65714285714 5.70786347227 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 20.0 4.67664670659 428% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.335953871296 0.218282227539 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0701812525178 0.0743258471296 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0851325777754 0.0701772020484 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168305107678 0.128457276422 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0888783928697 0.0628817314937 141% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 40.34 48.3550499002 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.62 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 145.0 98.500998004 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 11.1389221557 68% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.