The following appeared in a letter from the faculty committee to the president of Seatown University:
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 author recommends that in order to increase the retention rate of faculty , the university should give free tuition for their children. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To justify this argument, the author notes that it will help to boost up the morale of the faculty as well as lure in new professors. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author's recommendation.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that the retention rate will be higher if provided tuition waiver on the basis of study conducted in a nearby University. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground.To illustrate this, it might be possible that majority of faculty at the Oceania University might have college aged children thus making a solid case for them. But the same cannot be necessarily extended to Seatown as well. Hence the argument would have been more convincing if it explicitly stated that the majority of the faculty at Seatown have college going children.
The author also points out that this policy will help to lure in new professors . This again is a weak arguments and can be refuted. For example, how do we know that the new professors interested in joining Seatown all have college going children? They might be young and could be more interested in what research facilities and incentives the University is offering. If the argument had provided evidence or statistical data which claims that people interested in applying for the jobs are all having college going children then it would gave been a lot more convincing to the reader.
Finally,the author assumes that the policy will help boost up morale of the faculty. However,careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides less credible support in several key aspects. For example, is this incentive the only way of boosting up the morale? It might be the case that the faculty is more contend with incentives like promotion or salary hikes etc. Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claims are more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide clear and concrete evidence , perhaps by way of a reliable survey or a more exhaustive analysis of the need of the tuition fee waiver policy. Finally, to better assess, it would be necessary to know more information about how significantly will this policy affect the retention rate of the faculty members and how well will it be able to boost up the morale of the faculty and lure in new faculty members.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-08 | Keerthi98 | 33 | view |
| 2019-12-02 | Opak Pulu | 58 | view |
| 2019-10-31 | solankis304 | 63 | view |
| 2019-10-16 | Deepali24 | 69 | view |
| 2019-10-14 | Siddhivinayak Shanbhagd | 49 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 78, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...o increase the retention rate of faculty , the university should give free tuition...
^^
Line 1, column 490, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rovides little credible support for the authors recommendation. First of all, the ar...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 226, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: To
...sumption made without much solid ground.To illustrate this, it might be possible t...
^^
Line 3, column 450, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ecessarily extended to Seatown as well. Hence the argument would have been more convi...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 80, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...licy will help to lure in new professors . This again is a weak arguments and can ...
^^
Line 5, column 540, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'give'
Suggestion: give
...ng college going children then it would gave been a lot more convincing to the reade...
^^^^
Line 7, column 8, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , the
...ore convincing to the reader. Finally,the author assumes that the policy will hel...
^^^^
Line 7, column 93, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , careful
... boost up morale of the faculty. However,careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that i...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...tantive evidence. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 141, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...must provide clear and concrete evidence , perhaps by way of a reliable survey or ...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'well', 'for example', 'in conclusion', 'as well as', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.240079365079 0.25644967241 94% => OK
Verbs: 0.156746031746 0.15541462614 101% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0853174603175 0.0836205057962 102% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0575396825397 0.0520304965353 111% => OK
Pronouns: 0.031746031746 0.0272364105082 117% => OK
Prepositions: 0.126984126984 0.125424944231 101% => OK
Participles: 0.0416666666667 0.0416121511921 100% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.67822507188 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0238095238095 0.026700313972 89% => OK
Particles: 0.00992063492063 0.001811407834 548% => OK
Determiners: 0.123015873016 0.113004496875 109% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0376984126984 0.0255425247493 148% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0119047619048 0.0127820249294 93% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2767.0 2731.13054187 101% => OK
No of words: 466.0 446.07635468 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.93776824034 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64618479453 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.3669527897 0.378187486979 97% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.296137339056 0.287650121315 103% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.19313304721 0.208842608468 92% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.105150214592 0.135150697306 78% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67822507188 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 207.018472906 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.454935622318 0.469332199767 97% => OK
Word variations: 50.9421049281 52.1807786196 98% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 22.1904761905 23.2022227129 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.3154630598 57.7814097925 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.761904762 141.986410481 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1904761905 23.2022227129 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.714285714286 0.724660767414 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 3.58251231527 279% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 51.8042100961 51.9672348444 100% => OK
Elegance: 1.66129032258 1.8405768891 90% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.503453843982 0.441005458295 114% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0831714410287 0.135418324435 61% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.04588783707 0.0829849096947 55% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.579687047276 0.58762219726 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.134731410654 0.147661913831 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.217651464956 0.193483328276 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.091368290639 0.0970749176394 94% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.483589701103 0.42659136922 113% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0625570397884 0.0774707102158 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.368169696437 0.312017818177 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0673205249707 0.0698173142475 96% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.33743842365 192% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 14.0 6.46551724138 217% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.