The following appeared in a memo from the director of student housing at Buckingham College.
"To serve the housing needs of our students, Buckingham College should build a number of new dormitories. Buckingham's enrollment is growing and, based on current trends, will double over the next 50 years, thus making existing dormitory space inadequate. Moreover, the average rent for an apartment in our town has risen in recent years. Consequently, students will find it increasingly difficult to afford off-campus housing. Finally, attractive new dormitories would make prospective students more likely to enroll at Buckingham."
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 director recommends the construction of new dormitories in Buckingham College to serve the housing needs of the students. He used the current trends of growth in enrollment and rising rent of apartments in the town to validate his recommendations. However, the argument made by him does not make a cogent case since it is rife with holes and fissures. Before the argument is carefully reviewed, following evidences must be collected and evaluated.
First of all, evidence must be evaluated on the current trends which stated the rise in enrollment and would make it clear that it would get double in the next 50 years to come. However, if one has to consider the changing life circumstances, it is impossible to predict the same trends over the next 50 years. Since, it may happen that in the next 5 years, students would not willing to enroll in this because of downfall in its rating which may cause its new construction futile. Further, it is also possible that in the next 10 years or so, a new college comes up or a reputed college somewhere else, opens its new campus near to Buckingham. Because of its reputation in the education, students may not like to enroll in Buckingham but rather would choose this new college and thereby, making its construction useless. If both the examples were true, then the argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, evidence must be evaluated on the preference of students living in the campus. Since, it may happen that the location of this college is such to which no life exists after college. Students may feel bored after college and may like to go to other places far away from it in search of joyful and exciting things. In such a case, even the existing dormitories would remain vacant. Further, the evidence must also be evaluated for students prefer to live in apartments. Since, it may happen that students would not like to live in apartments in the town of which prices have increased but rather prefer to stay at sharing locations which may even cheaper to these college dormitories. Therefore, new dormitories would not serve any purpose. If both the instances were true, then the argument does not hold the water.
Thirdly. Evidence must also be evaluated for students’ preferences for enrollment on the basis of new and attractive dormitories. Since, it may happen that despite constructing new and lavish dormitories, students enrollment may not increase because students are more concerned on the education and teacher rankings of this college and they are least concerned about its dormitories. Further, the evidence must also state if the students coming for enrollment to this college are living faraway places where commutation is a problem. Since, it may happen that students would like to enroll themselves but instead of staying in its dormitories they would like to travel back to their homes after college. Therefore, the distance of the students from their homes to a college may have significant bearing on dormitories. Hence, unless the recommendation is fully reliable, it cannot be used to support the argument.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the director is able to offer more evidence perhaps in the form of study covering the potential of opening of new college in the town, preference of students staying in its dormitories and their inclination for enrollment in this college only, then it would be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the argument.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-30 | lanhhoang | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-30 | lanhhoang | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-25 | Arpit Sahni | 49 | view |
| 2020-01-13 | Kiho Park | 63 | view |
| 2019-12-18 | Shams Tarek | 50 | view |
- Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be 66
- Competition for high grades seriously limits the quality of learning at all levels of education.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In dev 66
- Universities should require students to take courses only within those fields they are interested in studying.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting 66
- In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement 66
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position 62
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 27 15
No. of Words: 591 350
No. of Characters: 2886 1500
No. of Different Words: 237 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.931 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.883 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.724 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 207 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 162 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 116 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.889 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.918 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.852 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.315 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.472 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, as to, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 29.0 12.9520958084 224% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 28.8173652695 160% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 92.0 55.5748502994 166% => OK
Nominalization: 33.0 16.3942115768 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2968.0 2260.96107784 131% => OK
No of words: 591.0 441.139720559 134% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02199661591 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.93056706295 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84065175037 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 245.0 204.123752495 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.414551607445 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 933.3 705.55239521 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => 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: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.0382485589 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.153846154 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7307692308 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.07692307692 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.189796461352 0.218282227539 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0611985213392 0.0743258471296 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0787542376738 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121110820521 0.128457276422 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0409850093217 0.0628817314937 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.72 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.