The following report 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. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds represent the most frequently given reason for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid—a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil—as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."
The assumptions of the author a report in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council wroten in his memo about the use of Ichthaid is a good approach for prevent from getting cold and being absenteeism. The author ignores important information and some question needed to be answered in order to decide the recommendation to have the predicted results.
First, the author provides no assurance that the reports which the argument depends are reliable. Indeed, the author does not mention information about the number of the respondents, their age, and their profile. It is entirely possible the survey’s respondents are not representative of overall population of the people live in nearby East Meria, because the survey was done with limited area, or a special career. In addition, the number of people, who participated in this survey may was too low to ensure that the survey results are right.
Second, the author relies on the assumption that people who lives in nearby East Meria was low get cold and few absenteeism from works because of the fish consumption. Nevertheless, people, who live in this region, have strong body because they do regular physical activities. In addition, people work in the factories that its manager does not allow them to be more absenteeism, even though they get cold. Without considering these possible scenarios, the author’s conclusion cannot be acceptable.
In the third place, the author cites these people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for treatment of cold, so people get less cold. However, it is not necessarily the case. The lack of doctors in this region cause people can not visit them more than once or twice per year. So, the argument relies on the limited information, I can not take the author’s conclusion seriously.
Finally, base on the fact the consumption of fish is useful for preventing cold, the author infers that Ichthaid—a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil—can be beneficial. Although common sense informs me that this relationship exists, the author must provide clear information of it. In fact, it is entirely possible the fish have a special material that it prevents of colds, while this material is not on the oil of fishes.
In sum, the argument is logically rationally and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide clear information that a survey reflects of the general population. In order to evaluate recommendation, we need more information about all effective factors lead people to less visit doctors. In addition, it would be better to know more information about Ichthaid’s impacts on people who get cold.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 109, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[6]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun absenteeism seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'little absenteeism'.
Suggestion: little absenteeism
... nearby East Meria was low get cold and few absenteeism from works because of the fish consumpt...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 393, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the author's conclusion seriously. Finally, base on the fact the consumptio...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 435, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s material is not on the oil of fishes. In sum, the argument is logically ration...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'first', 'however', 'may', 'nevertheless', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'third', 'while', 'as to', 'in addition', 'in fact', 'in the third place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.267326732673 0.25644967241 104% => OK
Verbs: 0.130693069307 0.15541462614 84% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0930693069307 0.0836205057962 111% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0534653465347 0.0520304965353 103% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0356435643564 0.0272364105082 131% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.128712871287 0.125424944231 103% => OK
Participles: 0.0178217821782 0.0416121511921 43% => Some participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 2.92075886422 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0178217821782 0.026700313972 67% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.112871287129 0.113004496875 100% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0138613861386 0.0255425247493 54% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0118811881188 0.0127820249294 93% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2711.0 2731.13054187 99% => OK
No of words: 438.0 446.07635468 98% => OK
Chars per words: 6.18949771689 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57476223824 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.383561643836 0.378187486979 101% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.27397260274 0.287650121315 95% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.191780821918 0.208842608468 92% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.134703196347 0.135150697306 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92075886422 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 207.018472906 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511415525114 0.469332199767 109% => OK
Word variations: 58.1549512261 52.1807786196 111% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 20.8571428571 23.2022227129 90% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.4710491224 57.7814097925 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.095238095 141.986410481 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8571428571 23.2022227129 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.714285714286 0.724660767414 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 48.2544031311 51.9672348444 93% => OK
Elegance: 1.88288288288 1.8405768891 102% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.432509590102 0.441005458295 98% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.128316220785 0.135418324435 95% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0627794695886 0.0829849096947 76% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.593836603392 0.58762219726 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.12986476936 0.147661913831 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.181524454075 0.193483328276 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0826063990998 0.0970749176394 85% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.400336869008 0.42659136922 94% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0698826692456 0.0774707102158 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.299377255457 0.312017818177 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0768574547113 0.0698173142475 110% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: 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.