While the Department of Education in the state of Attra recommends that high school students be assigned homework every day, the data from a recent statewide survey of high school math and science teachers give us reason to question the usefulness of daily homework. In the district of Sanlee, 86 percent of the teachers reported assigning homework three to five times a week, whereas in the district of Marlee, less than 25 percent of the teachers reported assigning homework three to five times a week. Yet the students in Marlee earn better grades overall and are less likely to be required to repeat a year of school than are the students in Sanlee. Therefore, all teachers in our high schools should assign homework no more than twice a week.
The writer of argument based upon some assumptions and examples concludes that it is a wise option to assign homework at the high schools no more than twice a week. However, this conclusion cannot be accepted as it is in that it rests on the lists of assumptions all of which can be challenged in one way or another.
The first problem with the argument is related to survey and its validity. The requirement of assignment pre day in the high schools is established in Attra state and it’s all high schools; however, this survey is conducted in two specific regions of this state. Since there is no any lucid data and valid statistic about the proportions of these case-studies to the whole state, this survey is opened to the suspicions. Perhaps these two districts cover solely 20 percent of the high schools in the state. Thus, this survey is shaped based upon the vague and facile information. Besides, the survey merely is focused on the two field of study and there is no any lucid data that these failures in the performance of mathematics and science are extended to the other subjects too. Maybe the students in the literature present their ultimate function by the daily homework. Hence, the daily assignment is beneficial is some cases. Either scenario provides a suspicion about the survey which is mentioned in the argument.
Another problem with the argument is that the writer superficially compares two districts by underestimating their dominant dissimilarities. Although in the district of Sanlee in the comparison of Marlee, the majority of the teachers assign the daily homework, perhaps the students of the Sanlee do not possess the sufficient educational background; consequently, the bulks of assignments cannot depict the expected outcomes. Or maybe the students of Marlee have the opportunity to get advantageous of the well-equipped schools. Their schools have the decent library, laboratory, and well-educated teachers all of which lead them to acquire the information in very short span and with less demand for reviews. Without accounting these and other possible dissimilarities among these two districts, it will be inaccurate to compare them without shedding a spotlight on these dissimilarities and consider them as the equal regions.
The third problem with the argument is that the writer extends the data of survey to all high schools, and considers all of them as identical. Even in a case which all of the doubts about the argument mentioned above are invalid, as there is no any concrete and cogent information to establish the links among all high schools, this conclusion seems doubtful and vague. Perhaps, the less amount of assignment in the survey is favorable for the students of that spot; however, there is no any explicit data that this system will illustrate the same result in all high schools. Perhaps, the fewer requirements of homework in the other region pave the path to knotty and serious training problems.
All in all, to persuade me that this conclusion is accurate, the writer should provide the lists of reasons and evidence about the accuracy of the survey, the main reason of the shortcoming in the Sanlee is related to homework, and all high schools share the equal features. Otherwise, all mentioned reasons and assumptions are vague and doubtful.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-03 | stevewang1007 | 69 | view |
| 2019-12-06 | harshit kukreja | 53 | view |
| 2019-11-25 | Yann | 63 | view |
| 2019-11-18 | ifxcuo | 43 | view |
| 2019-10-30 | orlando23 | 82 | view |
- Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this period, most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station's coverage of weather and 50
- tpo43 81
- tpo48 85
- tpo22 86
- Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 284, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...c regions of this state. Since there is no any lucid data and valid statistic abou...
^^
Line 3, column 663, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
... on the two field of study and there is no any lucid data that these failures in t...
^^
Line 7, column 165, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...them as identical. Even in a case which all of the doubts about the argument mentioned abo...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 243, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...entioned above are invalid, as there is no any concrete and cogent information to ...
^^
Line 7, column 486, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...tudents of that spot; however, there is no any explicit data that this system will...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['besides', 'consequently', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'third', 'thus', 'well']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.232945091514 0.25644967241 91% => OK
Verbs: 0.12146422629 0.15541462614 78% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0948419301165 0.0836205057962 113% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0366056572379 0.0520304965353 70% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0232945091514 0.0272364105082 86% => OK
Prepositions: 0.134775374376 0.125424944231 107% => OK
Participles: 0.0299500831947 0.0416121511921 72% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.86443487436 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0216306156406 0.026700313972 81% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.179700499168 0.113004496875 159% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00998336106489 0.0255425247493 39% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00665557404326 0.0127820249294 52% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3328.0 2731.13054187 122% => OK
No of words: 547.0 446.07635468 123% => OK
Chars per words: 6.08409506399 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83611736076 4.57801047555 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.36563071298 0.378187486979 97% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.283363802559 0.287650121315 99% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.228519195612 0.208842608468 109% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.127970749543 0.135150697306 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86443487436 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 241.0 207.018472906 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440585009141 0.469332199767 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 51.5794352351 52.1807786196 99% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 24.8636363636 23.2022227129 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.2116706079 57.7814097925 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.272727273 141.986410481 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8636363636 23.2022227129 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.5 0.724660767414 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 53.2000166196 51.9672348444 102% => OK
Elegance: 2.19266055046 1.8405768891 119% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.534787989453 0.441005458295 121% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.14714808902 0.135418324435 109% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0729354569968 0.0829849096947 88% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.624406408545 0.58762219726 106% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.145885463279 0.147661913831 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.262230125362 0.193483328276 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.119736413769 0.0970749176394 123% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.608191418649 0.42659136922 143% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.102416947456 0.0774707102158 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.418902082063 0.312017818177 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0588334858352 0.0698173142475 84% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.33743842365 48% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.87684729064 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 11.0 5.36822660099 205% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.