The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.
"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. This shows that eating a substantial amount of fish can clearly prevent colds. Furthermore, since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, attendance levels will improve. Therefore, we recommend the daily use of a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
This argument is flawed for many reasons. Primarily, the argument is based on many unwarranted assumptions which aren’t supported by any facts. The conclusion is centered on the theory that the cause of high absence rates is poor health and a better diet will be the solution to the issue at hand.
For one, the argument states the reason for high absenteeism is the common cold or poor health among students and adults. However, there is no evidence to support this statement. There could be a variety of reasons why absence has become common at school and at work, such as, laziness, trying to put off responsibilities, problems at home, or simply not having a method of transportation to get to work or school. Further analysis and details are needed to correctly determine the cause and solution to reduce absenteeism. Employees or students who are missing school and work should be asked the reason for absence and all these reasons must then be accounted for to come up with an appropriate plan to resolve the problem. We cannot assume the reason for absence was sickness in the individual since no evidence is given to support this analysis. Lack of facts and accurate statistics weakens this argument.
More significantly, the argument compares the city in question to another nearby city of East Meria. However, this comparison is not valid until further information is given about the circumstances and environmental conditions of East Meria. The argument directly relates fish consumption with better health. There could be a number of possibilities why residents in East Meria are not likely to get sick, such as better healthcare in hospitals, less pollution, and safer environmental conditions. The argument also does not provide a comparison between the absence rates in the current city to that of East Meria. The possibility still exists that although the population might overall be healthier, absenteeism is just as high in East Meria. City life in East Meria needs to be analyzed and factors such as methods of transportation, daily routines, traffic, as well as occupations and locations of schools must all be given significance. Therefore, the conclusion that more consumption of fish will reduce absenteeism is invalid, because although fish consumption does not prove to be a solution to healthier residents, nor does the argument provide proof it could be a solution to reduce absence among workers and students.
Furthermore, the fact both cities are different needs to be considered. Both cities need to be evaluated as separate entities based on their distinct factors. What works for one city may not work for the other. Although East Meria might have a healthier population, until more information is given on the absence rate, we cannot assume this causes a reduction in absenteeism. There is also no way to determine if fish consumption will make the overall population of the city in question healthier as well as it could be a possibility that fish is not as beneficial to them as it is to the people of East Meria. The city in question could benefit greatly if they provide better methods of transportation or build better road systems to regulate traffic. Since reasons for absence and accurate statistics are not provided, it is impossible to base the solution on mere assumptions.
In conclusion, because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions it is not a valid basis for change. Further breakdown of the issue as well as background details are needed to determine a solution.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 499, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[3]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...ation of the city in question healthier as well as it could be a possibility that ...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'therefore', 'well', 'in conclusion', 'such as', 'as well as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.267295597484 0.25644967241 104% => OK
Verbs: 0.158805031447 0.15541462614 102% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0801886792453 0.0836205057962 96% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0550314465409 0.0520304965353 106% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0157232704403 0.0272364105082 58% => OK
Prepositions: 0.12106918239 0.125424944231 97% => OK
Participles: 0.0330188679245 0.0416121511921 79% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.93808203145 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0393081761006 0.026700313972 147% => OK
Particles: 0.00314465408805 0.001811407834 174% => OK
Determiners: 0.100628930818 0.113004496875 89% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0251572327044 0.0255425247493 98% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00786163522013 0.0127820249294 62% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3544.0 2731.13054187 130% => OK
No of words: 582.0 446.07635468 130% => OK
Chars per words: 6.08934707904 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.91168771031 4.57801047555 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.372852233677 0.378187486979 99% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.292096219931 0.287650121315 102% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.213058419244 0.208842608468 102% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.135738831615 0.135150697306 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93808203145 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 207.018472906 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.427835051546 0.469332199767 91% => OK
Word variations: 50.8566582712 52.1807786196 97% => OK
How many sentences: 27.0 20.039408867 135% => OK
Sentence length: 21.5555555556 23.2022227129 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.49670943 57.7814097925 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.259259259 141.986410481 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5555555556 23.2022227129 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.481481481481 0.724660767414 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 50.7651775487 51.9672348444 98% => OK
Elegance: 1.83561643836 1.8405768891 100% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.380933292525 0.441005458295 86% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.111006339342 0.135418324435 82% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0781854768788 0.0829849096947 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.480473594883 0.58762219726 82% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.13604901958 0.147661913831 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.145251638166 0.193483328276 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0841708638318 0.0970749176394 87% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.457383128657 0.42659136922 107% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0987329237967 0.0774707102158 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.258101206679 0.312017818177 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0760828819681 0.0698173142475 109% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 14.657635468 150% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations to cover all aspects.