Last year the number of students who enrolled in online degree programs offered by nearby Omni University increased by 50 percent. During the same year, Omni showed a significant decrease from prior years in expenditures for dormitory and classroom space, most likely because online instruction takes place via the Internet. In contrast, over the past three years, enrollment at Humana University has failed to grow and the cost of maintaining buildings has increased. Thus, to increase enrollment and solve the problem of budget deficits at Humana University, we should initiate and actively promote online degree programs like those at Omni.
The author of the argument recommends that the Humana University should try the same method as the Omni University to increase the participants and solve the financial issue. This recommendation rests on the series of the surmises all of which can be challenged in one way or another.
First of all, the argument mentions to the Omni University as a possible case which experiences this alteration from the traditional teaching system to the online one; however, this case and its experience are shaky. The duration which the Omni University tries this change is solely one year. The one year is a very short span, and its immediate outcome cannot be accepted as convincing and guaranteed evidence for its success. Maybe this university will not be as attractive as it is this year. Or perhaps the incomes from the internet courses will not be as sufficient as it is ongoing. The argument would have been fortified if it had lucidly presented the testimonies related to the continuity of success of this new teaching system at the Omni University.
Next, even if the success of the Omni University is invariable, there is no clue that this scheme will show the identical result at the Humana University. This case can be valid in a situation which both universities share the common and equal status; otherwise, it is an abortive task to compare and expect that the final result of the same method will be unique at both irrelevant universities. For instance, there is no evidence that the why the number of the enrollment does not grow during this three-year. Maybe this stability is related to the demographic stand. The statistic is more focused on the old and kids rather than youths. In this case, this alteration will be meaningless. Or there is no reason that the internet usage is favorable to the students of the Humana University. In this condition, the variation will be further cost since the students are reluctant to use the internet. Each scenario would present a particular end which is apart from the expected and assumed outcome in the argument.
Finally, the writer believes that the novel method could address the problem of meager budget. As long as there is no evident and statistical data about the Omni income from the new method, and expense of the Humana University for the preservation of the buildings, this assumption is a dangling one. First of all, the mentioned claim about the Omni University does not illustrate accurate information about the financial benefit; it lonely asserts that there is a decline in the expense of the class and dormitory. This assertion cannot be accepted as the supportive evidence for the monetary benefit. Second, there is no data that what is the cost of the Humana University to keep the building. There is no guarantee that the Internet-based education will cover and exceed the expense of the constructions. If the argument had completely sated the monetary value of new method and cost of the buildings, the argument could have been strengthened.
All in all, based on the reason mentioned above, this argument opens to debate. The author should present data about the accuracy of the study and similarity between the two universities and financial benefits. Otherwise, the argument is unpersuasive.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-01-17 | Sudan Devkota | 61 | view |
- To reverse a decline in listener numbers, our owners have decided that WWAC must change from its current rock-music format. The decline has occurred despite population growth in our listening area, but that growth has resulted mainly from people moving he 66
- imagine that you are in a classroom or meeting, the teacher or the meeting leader says something incorrect. In your opinion, which of the following is the best thing to do? 1. interrupt and correct the mistake right away; 2. wait until the class or meetin 73
- tpo 11 73
- tpo39 3
- Last October the city of Belleville installed high-intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined within a month. The city of Amburg has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district, but the rate of 58
Comments
Essay evaluation report by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... be challenged in one way or another. First of all, the argument mentions to t...
^^^
Line 5, column 438, Rule ID: THE_HOW[1]
Message: Did you mean 'why'?
Suggestion: why
...For instance, there is no evidence that the why the number of the enrollment does not g...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'apart from', 'for instance', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.239530988275 0.25644967241 93% => OK
Verbs: 0.132328308208 0.15541462614 85% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0770519262982 0.0836205057962 92% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0485762144054 0.0520304965353 93% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0134003350084 0.0272364105082 49% => OK
Prepositions: 0.113902847571 0.125424944231 91% => OK
Participles: 0.0268006700168 0.0416121511921 64% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.81882547032 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0167504187605 0.026700313972 63% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.185929648241 0.113004496875 165% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0284757118928 0.0255425247493 111% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0117252931323 0.0127820249294 92% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3278.0 2731.13054187 120% => OK
No of words: 547.0 446.07635468 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.99268738574 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83611736076 4.57801047555 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.345521023766 0.378187486979 91% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.270566727605 0.287650121315 94% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.213893967093 0.208842608468 102% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.142595978062 0.135150697306 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81882547032 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 207.018472906 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.425959780622 0.469332199767 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 49.6587716027 52.1807786196 95% => OK
How many sentences: 27.0 20.039408867 135% => OK
Sentence length: 20.2592592593 23.2022227129 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.8505411346 57.7814097925 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.407407407 141.986410481 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2592592593 23.2022227129 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.407407407407 0.724660767414 56% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 47.3159320198 51.9672348444 91% => OK
Elegance: 1.95689655172 1.8405768891 106% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.293767826096 0.441005458295 67% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.137206072093 0.135418324435 101% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.099487118956 0.0829849096947 120% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.613344434108 0.58762219726 104% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.137393506286 0.147661913831 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.140997836767 0.193483328276 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0542819976503 0.0970749176394 56% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.640264679389 0.42659136922 150% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0626938598118 0.0774707102158 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.233318126077 0.312017818177 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0301445351679 0.0698173142475 43% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.87684729064 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... be challenged in one way or another. First of all, the argument mentions to t...
^^^
Line 5, column 438, Rule ID: THE_HOW[1]
Message: Did you mean 'why'?
Suggestion: why
...For instance, there is no evidence that the why the number of the enrollment does not g...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'apart from', 'for instance', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.239530988275 0.25644967241 93% => OK
Verbs: 0.132328308208 0.15541462614 85% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0770519262982 0.0836205057962 92% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0485762144054 0.0520304965353 93% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0134003350084 0.0272364105082 49% => OK
Prepositions: 0.113902847571 0.125424944231 91% => OK
Participles: 0.0268006700168 0.0416121511921 64% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.81882547032 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0167504187605 0.026700313972 63% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.185929648241 0.113004496875 165% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0284757118928 0.0255425247493 111% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0117252931323 0.0127820249294 92% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3278.0 2731.13054187 120% => OK
No of words: 547.0 446.07635468 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.99268738574 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83611736076 4.57801047555 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.345521023766 0.378187486979 91% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.270566727605 0.287650121315 94% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.213893967093 0.208842608468 102% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.142595978062 0.135150697306 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81882547032 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 207.018472906 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.425959780622 0.469332199767 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 49.6587716027 52.1807786196 95% => OK
How many sentences: 27.0 20.039408867 135% => OK
Sentence length: 20.2592592593 23.2022227129 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.8505411346 57.7814097925 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.407407407 141.986410481 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2592592593 23.2022227129 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.407407407407 0.724660767414 56% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 47.3159320198 51.9672348444 91% => OK
Elegance: 1.95689655172 1.8405768891 106% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.293767826096 0.441005458295 67% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.137206072093 0.135418324435 101% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.099487118956 0.0829849096947 120% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.613344434108 0.58762219726 104% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.137393506286 0.147661913831 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.140997836767 0.193483328276 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0542819976503 0.0970749176394 56% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.640264679389 0.42659136922 150% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0626938598118 0.0774707102158 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.233318126077 0.312017818177 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0301445351679 0.0698173142475 43% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.87684729064 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.