The following appeared in the summary of a study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia.
"Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates, for the past several decades, food-processing companies have also been adding salicylates to foods as preservatives. This rise in the commercial use of salicylates has been found to correlate with a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in our twenty-year study. Recently, food-processing companies have found that salicylates can also be used as flavor additives for foods. With this new use for salicylates, we can expect a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia."
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 of the argument predicts continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia. But while extrapolating his conclusion based on mentioned factors in his argument author has forgot to provide vital evidence needed for his prediction to be true. He has based his conclusion without considering some important variables that affect the strength of his argument.
First of all, author correlates the finding of his study with increase in commercial use of salicylates in foods. While developing this logic, he mentions that salicylates can be used to treat headaches. He also mentions that naturally, foods are already rich in the content of salicylates. Hence, he should provide information that whether this natural salycilate content in the foods, is sufficient on its own to treat the headaches of the patients, if not then how much more quantity of salicylate apart from the one that we get naturally from foods, is needed to treat the headaches of an average citizen of Mentia. He should also provide some data reporting the total content of salicylates present in the preservated foods. This data can be helpful to know that whether the preservated foods really contain salicylates in sufficient amount to treat headaches and thus can be linked to the trend of decrease in reported headaches. Also, author does not provide any data about the sales of aspirin that is medically used to treat headaches. Because, if the sales of the aspirin drug has raised, it means that more aspirin is consumed by the citizens than before and thus, reduced number of cases of headaches is a result of the increased consumption of apirin and not the salicylates in the preserved foods. And thus to expect continued decline in number of reports of headaches is not logical.
Also, even if Salicylate is assumed to be responsible for reduction in reports of headaches, it is wrong to assume that this trend will continue in future. Author cites that recently, food-processing companies have found that salicylates can also be used as flavour additives and thus it is reasonable to expect decline in reported number of headaches in city of Mentia as now companies will increase use of Salicylates in their products. But author fails to give any evidence that food-companies are actually willing to produce foods with salicylates as flavour additives and increased amount of Salicylate present in the foods will actually be more effective. Because it is quite reasonable that companies think that, as they already are using salicylates as a preservative in foods, there is no further need to add more salycylates to the foods, as the existing amount of salicylates is functioning both as a preservative and also as a flavour additive. Hence, author needs to cite some examples of products which companies might actually produce in near future, containing increased amount of Salicylates.
Hence, author needs to provide a lot of relevent data reporting some important information to come to a solid conclusion. Also, he needs to provide some examples of products which will be launched by companies which contain more salicylates. But, as such authors argument is flawed and lack sufficient evidence to be more persuasive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 225, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'forgotten'.
Suggestion: forgotten
...oned factors in his argument author has forgot to provide vital evidence needed for hi...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 147, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...to assume that this trend will continue in future. Author cites that recently, food-proce...
^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'but', 'first', 'hence', 'if', 'really', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'while', 'apart from', 'as for', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.247386759582 0.25644967241 96% => OK
Verbs: 0.163763066202 0.15541462614 105% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0853658536585 0.0836205057962 102% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0592334494774 0.0520304965353 114% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0348432055749 0.0272364105082 128% => OK
Prepositions: 0.162020905923 0.125424944231 129% => OK
Participles: 0.0470383275261 0.0416121511921 113% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.8908741683 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0400696864111 0.026700313972 150% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.081881533101 0.113004496875 72% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0191637630662 0.0255425247493 75% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0121951219512 0.0127820249294 95% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3258.0 2731.13054187 119% => OK
No of words: 532.0 446.07635468 119% => OK
Chars per words: 6.12406015038 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80261649409 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.396616541353 0.378187486979 105% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.313909774436 0.287650121315 109% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.21992481203 0.208842608468 105% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.15977443609 0.135150697306 118% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8908741683 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 207.018472906 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.402255639098 0.469332199767 86% => OK
Word variations: 46.328334123 52.1807786196 89% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 26.6 23.2022227129 115% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.9732452279 57.7814097925 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 162.9 141.986410481 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6 23.2022227129 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.7 0.724660767414 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 57.9909774436 51.9672348444 112% => OK
Elegance: 1.77027027027 1.8405768891 96% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.537853142033 0.441005458295 122% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.211805248111 0.135418324435 156% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0930662824387 0.0829849096947 112% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.586457949875 0.58762219726 100% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.112892118032 0.147661913831 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.236561458168 0.193483328276 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.129239989436 0.0970749176394 133% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.455336262995 0.42659136922 107% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0630803532363 0.0774707102158 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.340697579071 0.312017818177 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.163267425966 0.0698173142475 234% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.33743842365 180% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 13.0 6.46551724138 201% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 Out of 6 -- The score is based on language. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations to cover all aspects.