The following appeared in a report of the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University.
“During her 17 years as a professor of botany, Professor Thomas has proved herself to be well worth her annual salary of $50,000. Her classes are among the largest at the university, demonstrating her popularity among students. Moreover, the money she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. Therefore, in consideration of Professor Thomas’ demonstrated teaching and research abilities, we recommend that she receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson; without such a raise and promotion, we fear that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college.”
In the report at Elm City University, the author is recommending that Professor Thomas should receive the raise of $10,000 apprehending that Professor Thomas will go for another college. The author concludes the above statement based on Professors popularity in the college and research abilities, helping the university to receive many research grants. However, before the conclusion can be easily assessed, the author should address the following assumptions
First of all, it is assumed that professor’s classes are among the largest which makes Professor Thomas more popular. Perhaps the university has more number of seats for Botany course compared to other courses. Additionally, it can be the case that a student can easily get admission in the Elm City University for the botany course and thus this scenario substantiates the former one. If the above mentioned scenarios prove to be true, the author’s conclusion may get weakened.
In addition, the author assumes that the professor received research grants which valued more than his/her annual salary for two years provide sufficient evidence to increase his/hers salary. However, since 15 years, professor was not awarded research grants exceeding the salary. It can be also the case that the professor could have not contributed towards any research areas. Thus one cannot say that receiving research grants greater than the salary back to back for two years, can get the professor desired raise in the salary. So if these above scenarios are true, the conclusion of the appraisal doesn’t hold true.
Finally, the author is assuming that without the appraisal and promotion, the professor would leave the college and supersede another college. Well, it can be the case that the professor is passionate about teaching students and he/she is indifferent of the salary being provided. Furthermore, it can be the case that the the professor wants to become a kind of celebrity in the university who wants to break his/hers own record of teaching the number of students because he/she is enthusiastic about it. Thus, if these scenarios prove to be true, the author’s contention is weakened.
Therefore, in order to arrive at the fearfull apprehension that the professor would change the college, the author should address the above mentioned three assumptions in order to make the report viable.
- The picture below shows the recycling process of wasted glass bottles Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make a comparison where relevant 78
- The bar chart below shows the precentage of money invested in mutual funds stocks and bonds by five different age groups Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons ehre relevant
- The chart below shows the changes in ownership of electrical appliances and amount of time spent doing housework in households in one country between 1920 and 2019 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparision 73
- Some employers want to be able to contact their staffs at all times especially holidays Does this approach has more advantages than disadvantages 78
- The bar chart below shows the precentage of money invested in mutual funds stocks and bonds by five different age groups Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons ehre relevant 95
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 10 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 381 350
No. of Characters: 1933 1500
No. of Different Words: 177 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.418 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.073 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.641 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.412 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.852 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.824 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.374 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.428 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.138 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 2 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 379, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...contributed towards any research areas. Thus one cannot say that receiving research ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 318, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...d. Furthermore, it can be the case that the the professor wants to become a kind of cel...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 318, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...d. Furthermore, it can be the case that the the professor wants to become a kind of cel...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, therefore, thus, well, in addition, kind of, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1994.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 375.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31733333333 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40055868397 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7376239495 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.469333333333 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 620.1 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.7543967906 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.625 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4375 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.4375 5.70786347227 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.276446569913 0.218282227539 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0905124697038 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0590446016592 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149703521215 0.128457276422 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0406453690605 0.0628817314937 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.