The following appeared as part of a recommendation from the financial planning office to the administration of Fern Valley University.
"In the past few years, Fern Valley University has suffered from a decline in both enrollments and admissions applications. The reason can be discovered from our students, who most often cite poor teaching and inadequate library resources as their chief sources of dissatisfaction with Fern Valley. Therefore, in order to increase the number of students attending our university, and hence to regain our position as the most prestigious university in the greater Fern Valley metropolitan area, it is necessary to initiate a fund-raising campaign among the alumni that will enable us to expand the range of subjects we teach and to increase the size of our library facilities."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
In the recommendation made by the financial planning committee, to the administration of the Fern Valley University, the financial planning committee suggests that a fund raining campaign among the alumni shall be done in order to obtain the necessary funds for the expanding the subjects range and improving the library facilities. According to the committee, the poor enrollments and admissions at the University, as surveyed among their students are due to the poor teaching quality and inadequate library resources and increasing them would better the situation of the University. While the argument of the committee sounds vaild and logical, it is important to identify that the committee has made many assumptions without concrete evidences. The arguments made by the committee are thus rife with assumptions and flaws.
Firstly, the author argues that poor teaching and inadequate library resources are the chief sources of dissatisfaction with the Fern Valley, as is discovered from their own students. In this argument, we are unaware on the number of students that were being asked or surveyed, and it shall be safe to say author makes an assumption that the few students he surveyed shall represent the entire University which may not be true. There could be varied other reasons for the poor performace of the University like the lack of proper accomodation for students studying in the University, or external factors like the high competition among the Universities in the same location. Therefore, it is important procure evidence on the number of students surveyed and the opinion of other students of the University. External factors shall also be considered while evaluating the reasons behind Fern Valleys performance and reputation.
Later, the author suggest that a fund raising shall be conducted to raise the required money to focus on the improvements to be made. He makes an assumption here that, on fund raising among the alumni, he shall receive all the money required for improving the teaching quality and the library resources. We are unaware of the age group of the alumni, and the monetary stability of the alumni of the University. It shall not be safe to assume that the alumni of the University are well settled and earning enough to fund the university with the required amount. Some alumni, even on possessing the required resources, may turn their back on the University. It is highly risky to assume the same and proceed forward without any proper evidence on the estimate of fundings to be received from each University pass out, after analysing their financial conditions.
Finally, the author makes a heavy assumption that the fund raiser event shall solve all its crisis. He mentions that the campaign will enable them to expand the range of subjects and increase the size of library facilities. There is no guarantee that on expanding the range of subjects being that the condition or the demand for the University will become any better. Instead, there could also be a possibility that instead of increasing the resources, he may focus on betterment of the exisitng teaching Quality. This assumption is not backed by any valid evidence and so there is no guarantee that the postion of the University will be any better.
Therefore, the claim made by the auhtor lacks valid evidences without which we are not in a position to come to any conclusion. We shall requrie more information on the reasons for the poor performace for wide range of surveyers, we need the analysis report on the
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-26 | Gnyana | 68 | view |
| 2023-05-09 | shubham shah | 55 | view |
| 2021-04-04 | ashimaar | 70 | view |
| 2020-12-24 | Ajantha J | 55 | view |
| 2020-07-08 | vithikasalomi | 68 | view |
- Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected However since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations we cannot permit i 59
- An international development organization 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 paid 68
- A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labor Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim a 62
- A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio We need to increase the funding for the movie Working Title by 10 in order to ensure a quality product As you know we are working with a first time director whose only previous exper 58
- The first step to self knowledge is rejection of the familiar 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 developing and supporting your po 58
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 11 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 580 350
No. of Characters: 2903 1500
No. of Different Words: 230 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.907 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.005 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.733 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 208 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 169 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 131 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 84 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.364 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.301 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.545 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.328 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.543 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.181 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 386, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the committee, the poor enrollments and admissions at the University, as surveye...
^^
Line 9, column 265, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...yers, we need the analysis report on the
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, if, may, so, therefore, thus, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 78.0 55.5748502994 140% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2965.0 2260.96107784 131% => OK
No of words: 580.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11206896552 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90746259869 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82024435824 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.403448275862 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 954.9 705.55239521 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.4141355032 57.8364921388 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.772727273 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3636363636 23.324526521 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.27272727273 5.70786347227 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.130068601471 0.218282227539 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0385455891115 0.0743258471296 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0512816720038 0.0701772020484 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0685522157858 0.128457276422 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0489074149525 0.0628817314937 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 98.500998004 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.