“Two years ago Nova High School began to use interactive computer instruction in three academic subjects. The school dropout rate declined immediately, and last year’s graduates have reported some impressive achievements in college. In future budgets the school board should use a greater portion of the available funds to buy more computers, and all schools in the district should adopt interactive computer instruction throughout the curriculum.”
The argument claims that, because the high school has seen improvements in dropout rates in the years following the adoption of a new teaching methodology, the Nova School District should dedicate a greater portion of their budget to computers so as to use interactive computer instruction throughout its curriculum. As it is presented, the argument reveals several leaps of faith and neglects to provide adequate data to support its equation. By relying on unsubstantiated assumptions, the argument’s conclusion remains questionable for several key reasons.
Firstly, the argument assumes that, because Nova High School’s dropout rate declined simultaneously with the deployment of interactive computer instruction, the new teaching methodology must have caused the decline in dropout rate. This is not necessarily the case as it is quite possible that the improved dropout rates were entirely unrelated to the new teaching method. For example, it could be the case that the last two classes of seniors were more ambitious than the preceding classes and that the dropout rate would have declined irrespective of the increased use of computers. Without better knowledge of the composition of each class, it is difficult to conclude that the improvement was entirely due to the new computers.
Secondly, in suggesting that interactive computer instruction should be used throughout the district’s curriculum, the argument does not account for the chance that the methodology is only applicable for certain academic subjects or for certain grades. While the computers proved helpful for the three subjects, there is no guarantee that they will be similarly beneficial in other subjects – one would not think that English and Math should be taught in the same way, so there is no guarantee that computers would be helpful across all school subjects. Further, there is a good chance that students in elementary and middle schools would find the computers distracting, lessening the positive impact of interactive computer instruction.
Thirdly, the argument is not clear in its ultimate suggestion and does not provide sufficient information with which to evaluate the conclusion. It would be helpful to understand which budget categories would lose funding in order to expand the dollars available for interactive computer instruction. Without knowing what would lose funding, it is difficult to determine the net benefit of the recommendation.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and its conclusion is left questionable as a result. In evaluating an argument is is paramount to understand all of the related evidence, which is not provided by this argument. Had the argument provided additional detail such as which budget categories would be hurt by this reallocation, it would be made much stronger. By relying on unproven assumptions and excluding relevant details, the argument remains weak and validity of its argument’s conclusion remains questionable.
- “Two years ago Nova High School began to use interactive computer instruction in three academic subjects. The school dropout rate declined immediately, and last year’s graduates have reported some impressive achievements in college. In future budgets 69
- “In a recent citywide poll, 15 percent more residents said that they watch television programs about the visual artsthan was the case in a poll conducted fi ve years ago. During these past fi ve years, the number of people visitingour city’s art museu 16
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 460 350
No. of Characters: 2488 1500
No. of Different Words: 217 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.631 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.409 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.976 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 200 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 175 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 127 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 78 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.059 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.143 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.471 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.348 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.602 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.094 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 245, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...er portion of their budget to computers so as to use interactive computer instruction th...
^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 150, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: is
... as a result. In evaluating an argument is is paramount to understand all of the rela...
^^^^^
Line 17, column 180, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
... argument is is paramount to understand all of the related evidence, which is not provided...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, second, secondly, similarly, so, third, thirdly, while, as to, for example, in conclusion, such as, as a result, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2573.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 461.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.58134490239 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63367139033 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15570435664 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.488069414317 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 784.8 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.1892308288 57.8364921388 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.352941176 119.503703932 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.1176470588 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.70588235294 5.70786347227 153% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.233070505019 0.218282227539 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0703140080326 0.0743258471296 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0868259533425 0.0701772020484 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129413217409 0.128457276422 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0846306291317 0.0628817314937 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.4 14.3799401198 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.3550499002 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.38 12.5979740519 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.32208582834 112% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 98.500998004 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => 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.