The following is part of a letter from the Brookfree School Board. "As part of our new educational reform program, we identified ten schools most in need of immediate improvement. An advisory committee is now recommending that we hire consultants to study further the schools' problems and to propose a plan of action. Only two years ago, however, another group of consultants determined that several schools in our district had problems because their principals were inexperienced. Thus, if we want to see immediate improvement in our schools and save the district the money it would spend on hiring more consultants, we should replace all the principals in the ten worst schools with ten of our most experienced principals in the district. " Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
The writer of this argument - a member of the Brookfree School Board - is of the opinion that the ten worst schools in their district should have their principals replaced by more experienced ones. This view is due to a study conducted a couple of years prior that stated that the reason the schools were considered to be bad was due to their inexperienced principals. The argument is rife with holes and, hence, would not lead to a direct replacement of the principals in the ten worst schools.
Starting at the first statement, we can see that the writer has already decided to ignore the recommendation made by the advisory committee to hire consultants and evaluate the school's performance. The decision to hire consultants seems logical as there may be other underlying problems due to which the schools are in bad shape and it may not necessarily be that they have inexperienced principles. A detailed study must be required to be able to judge and come up with a plan of action to bring the schools into better shape. The author, however, does not seem to agree with the statement. They seem certain that the cause of the schools being in poor condition is associated with the apparently inexperienced principals. While there may be a reason for the writer to assume so - camaraderie or knowledge of the persons sitting in power - they do not support their claims with any sort of evidence to also inform the readers of their opinions. Due to this, the reader are forced to wonder what exactly a detailed study would have revealed about the situation were it to be conducted.
Secondly, we see that there was a study that had already been conducted had determined that the reason the schools in the district were doing poorly was due to inexperienced principals. We can safely assume that if such a verdict had been passed, it was more than likely that a solution had been brought up and enacted to rectify the situation as soon as possible. Even if there was no action taken, there is still no guarantee that the schools that are currently under consideration contain inexperienced principals. It is possible that the reason for their state is, instead, a lack of funding, unqualified staff, or scarcity in equipment. Furthermore, the study was conducted two years ago and it is not necessary, or likely, that it still holds true today. The writer does not take that into consideration, however, when they make their point.
The solution offered by the writer is to avoid spending money on consultants and instead replace the principals of the schools to see an immediate result. All the claims that the writer has made that the principals of the ten schools are inexperienced have not yet been supported in any way by evidence. Due to this, we cannot even be sure that they are inexperienced. Moreover, just because a principal is inexperienced does not mean that they cannot be hardworking and efficient. In fact, if a principal is new, that is most likely due to it being the first time they have ever been on, and as such, there is a much higher chance that the principal would work twice as hard to prove that they deserve to be there. On the other hand, it is not expedient that an experienced principal will feel similarly motivated to do their work as diligently. Not to mention, the money that the writer is hoping to save by not hiring consultants would still be used in the replacement of the principals as it is more likely that an experienced principal would demand a much higher salary than an inexperienced one, which may not even be required as there may be other factors for the school's problems.
Quality education is a necessary step in cultivating the minds of tomorrow. Children will be more interested in education if the institutes are well-stocked and properly kept. These reasons might be why the Brookfree School Board may decide to hire consultants and detail the conditions of the schools in their district instead of taking a hasty decision due to one member. This author's argument will not be enough to persuade the Board to exchange principals without prior checking.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-10 | kobiniloy74 | 73 | view |
| 2016-08-22 | dsanya | 58 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 178, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'schools'' or 'school's'?
Suggestion: schools'; school's
...ee to hire consultants and evaluate the schools performance. The decision to hire consu...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'apparently', 'first', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'second', 'secondly', 'similarly', 'so', 'still', 'well', 'while', 'in fact', 'sort of', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.189856957087 0.25644967241 74% => OK
Verbs: 0.192457737321 0.15541462614 124% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0780234070221 0.0836205057962 93% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0780234070221 0.0520304965353 150% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0390117035111 0.0272364105082 143% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.114434330299 0.125424944231 91% => OK
Participles: 0.0546163849155 0.0416121511921 131% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.78345333401 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0416124837451 0.026700313972 156% => OK
Particles: 0.00260078023407 0.001811407834 144% => OK
Determiners: 0.117035110533 0.113004496875 104% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0273081924577 0.0255425247493 107% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0104031209363 0.0127820249294 81% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 4116.0 2731.13054187 151% => OK
No of words: 713.0 446.07635468 160% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.77279102384 6.12365571057 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.16740358842 4.57801047555 113% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.311360448808 0.378187486979 82% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.234221598878 0.287650121315 81% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.172510518934 0.208842608468 83% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.124824684432 0.135150697306 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78345333401 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Unique words: 287.0 207.018472906 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.40252454418 0.469332199767 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 50.6402496285 52.1807786196 97% => OK
How many sentences: 27.0 20.039408867 135% => OK
Sentence length: 26.4074074074 23.2022227129 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.0664920247 57.7814097925 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 152.444444444 141.986410481 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4074074074 23.2022227129 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.703703703704 0.724660767414 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 49.8295672952 51.9672348444 96% => OK
Elegance: 1.15966386555 1.8405768891 63% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.389686186837 0.441005458295 88% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.15620615782 0.135418324435 115% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0747667531343 0.0829849096947 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.573014222804 0.58762219726 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.12354729182 0.147661913831 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.168053413314 0.193483328276 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0762282217072 0.0970749176394 79% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.507808459509 0.42659136922 119% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0866980461695 0.0774707102158 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.298569021662 0.312017818177 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0430236750473 0.0698173142475 62% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.87684729064 204% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Less content wanted. Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.