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 reasoning addressed by the author is affected by some problematics which could be used to undermine the final conclusion. These are a trouble analogy, an alternate cause and the lack of quantitative proof.
First of all, even though the new introduced policy has had a positive effect on the rate of faculty retention for Oceania University, it does not imply that the same wished effect will manifest for Seatown University. This is since the two universities may present different realities, despite the near distance, which has been used as main element to allow the comparison. For instance, professors at Oceania University may be characterised by worse financial conditions then professors at Seatown, which could help to explain the success of the introduced policy. Therefore, if educators at Seatown were wealthier, they could not have particular difficulties in sustain scholastic expenditures of their offspring. As a consequence, the incentive to remain in that faculty may not burgeon after the introduction of the policy.
Furthermore, in order to support its claim, the author cites a study which has been conducted on Oceania University. Nevertheless, no further information on this analysis are reported, such as the measures used to compute the faculty retention or who has requested and conducted the study. For instance, the favourable result may be linked to the utilisation of an inchoate measure, which does not consider relevant and reasonable elements. In addition, the analysis could have been directed by someone who is dependent to the university, meaning that he could have been incentivised to obtain a positive outcome in order to sustain and prove the efficacy of the new policy. The possibility of an artless study weakens effectively the conclusion of the author.
In addition, the increment of faculty retention at Oceania University may not be related actually to the free-tuition policy, as external factors can have influenced the final outcome. For example, having conducted the study during a crisis period could have yielded misleading results, as it is more challenging for individuals to find vacancies, rising their aversion to lose actual job positions. Also, the author does not report the period in which the analysis has been undertaken, that may differ significantly from the reality of today. For instance, it is likely that the richness of educators has increased in the span of time, allowing those to afford more expensive and prestigious universities for their children. As a consequence, if the study is implemented in a different period, there is a probability that the policy does not have any effect on the retention of professors.
Summing up, the plethora of flaws founded in the argumentation of the author allows to conclude that the free-tuition policy will not rise probably the retention of Seatown University. However, to strength his reasoning, the writer should explain why it is possible to compare the two universities and provide more information on the study, aiming at increasing the validity and consistency.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 489 350
No. of Characters: 2542 1500
No. of Different Words: 231 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.702 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.198 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.953 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 197 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 160 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 116 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 83 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.737 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.01 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.315 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.315 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.043 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 762, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...fectively the conclusion of the author. In addition, the increment of faculty re...
^^^^
Line 5, column 85, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'concluding'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'allow' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: concluding
... the argumentation of the author allows to conclude that the free-tuition policy will not r...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 393, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ncreasing the validity and consistency.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, then, therefore, for example, for instance, in addition, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2604.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 489.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32515337423 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05959858829 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486707566462 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 849.6 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.3392838679 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.052631579 119.503703932 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7368421053 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.89473684211 5.70786347227 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.284790909558 0.218282227539 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0810930559995 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0701097006551 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14724570814 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0934815051108 0.0628817314937 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.93 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.46 8.32208582834 114% => OK
difficult_words: 142.0 98.500998004 144% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.