The following appeared in a memorandum from administrative head of the international students activities at Rydell College To better attend to the needs of the international students being admitted to Rydell College we should build a new dining hall that

The given argument is baseless as there are no specific evidances provided to the claim that is stated. There are many gaps in the argument and should be bridged with proper evidances and supporting reasons. The argument is not cogent to reach a conclusion stated in the argument. It is very weak and baseless argument.

The author states that there is need of new dining hall which will serve the food to students at subsidized rate. The reason to build a new hall is not stated clearly. The food at subsidized rate can be served in the old hall as well. The old hall can we renovated and can be properly cleaned. What is the need to build the new hall to provide the food at subsidized rate?

While choosing the college mainly the jobs which are availed by students and the courses which are offered are taken into consideration by students. The food that is served by the dining hall is not much taken into consideration while choosing the college. So, the new admissions are not affected by the condition of the dining hall and the rate at which the food is served. Hence students will certainly not pay attention to the dining hall while choosing the college. Some students are localities and hence there is no need of provision of food on daily basis.

It is stated that new dining hall will increase the budget. There is no specific reason that how will new dining hall help in the increase of budget. Only baseless assumption is stated which is neither supported with proper reason nor any statistical data or survey which is recent. How is the educational improvement based on the building a new dining hall? The college is not chosen by students on the basis of the food served. It is not a major concern for many of the student while choosing the college.

The given argument is very weak and baseless which is neither supported with a proper reason nor the statistical data or the survey which is recent enough. The reasons given are not cogent and fails to support that a new dining hall should be built for the students, so that the students will avail the Rydell College. It is not supporting any reason for the supporting justification improvement in the budget. So the stated argument is baseless argument.

Votes
Average: 6.7 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 169, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...build a new hall is not stated clearly. The food at subsidized rate can be served i...
^^^
Line 3, column 236, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... can be served in the old hall as well. The old hall can we renovated and can be pr...
^^^
Line 5, column 376, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...d the rate at which the food is served. Hence students will certainly not pay attenti...
^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, if, so, well, while

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1841.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 395.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.66075949367 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45809453852 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47776848087 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 134.0 204.123752495 66% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.339240506329 0.468620217663 72% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 574.2 705.55239521 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.167504177 57.8364921388 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 76.7083333333 119.503703932 64% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4583333333 23.324526521 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.08333333333 5.70786347227 19% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230018216286 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0813545555458 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0647298895812 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133381273369 0.128457276422 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0661984385759 0.0628817314937 105% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.7 14.3799401198 61% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 48.3550499002 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 12.197005988 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.45 12.5979740519 75% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.95 8.32208582834 84% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 98.500998004 64% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => 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.

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: 24 15
No. of Words: 395 350
No. of Characters: 1799 1500
No. of Different Words: 128 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.458 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.554 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.422 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 80 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 27 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.458 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.627 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.375 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.338 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.546 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.121 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5