An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be paid subsidies for farming the new variety of millet. Since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt the new variety. To combat vitamin A deficiency, the government of Tagus should do everything it can to promote this new type of millet.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The statement says that the new type of millet will mitigate the problem of vitamin A deficiency of Tagus is no doubt if true will be good for the people. However, as the statement is drawn and put a period on an effective solution, I do not think is appropriate - there are several fallacious reasoning and some vital points are missing.
First of all, the author of the statement mentions that the cost of this millet is more but the farmers will be paid subsidies. Does this ensure that farmers are interested planting these seeds? I do not think so - if the farmers clearly do not see their benefits why do they plant it? The statement does not provide any further clarification regarding this. There may have some other obstacles that will hold back the farmers planting the seeds. Or say the farmers are interested, does this ensure they will be able to grow a productive corps? At that point, I think further clarification is needed, the author should have clarified that there are no other objects which might restrict the growth of the millet. One thing to clarify this claim is though millet is a staple food in Tagus, there is no surety that it will grow nice and easily every time this is planted.
Secondly, as the author claims that the international organization has engineered the new breed of millet which is high in vitamin A, the author does not discuss anything about how fast this could bring the significant effect. If the people of Tagus buy what the author claims there is not any certainty that the deficiency of vitamin A will be solved in a shorter period of time. There might have present other remedies, but the author does not even provide a modicum of information regarding that. In my sense, that should have been discussed thoroughly.
Thirdly, people of Tagus are not of the same age - blatantly, there are numerous people among which some are kids some are grown and some are the older people; the human body of all ages might not have the same cure. The pill that is curable for the kids might not work in the grown bodies. Alternatively, the pill for the grown bodies should contain more ingredients that might be insidious for the kids. The author at no point has discussed that. There should have some kind of indication about that.
In conclusion, to me, the author draws a biased conclusion regarding the international development organization, which have several flaws as I discussed in the above paras. If the author has identified these and provided further clarification, then we could say it is all right to mitigate the vitamin A deficiency of the people of Tagus.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 228, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...his could bring the significant effect. If the people of Tagus buy what the author...
^^
Line 5, column 366, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...f vitamin A will be solved in a shorter period of time. There might have present other remedie...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'third', 'thirdly', 'i think', 'in conclusion', 'kind of', 'no doubt', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.212 0.25644967241 83% => OK
Verbs: 0.186 0.15541462614 120% => OK
Adjectives: 0.084 0.0836205057962 100% => OK
Adverbs: 0.048 0.0520304965353 92% => OK
Pronouns: 0.026 0.0272364105082 95% => OK
Prepositions: 0.102 0.125424944231 81% => OK
Participles: 0.036 0.0416121511921 87% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.57148828208 2.79052419416 92% => OK
Infinitives: 0.008 0.026700313972 30% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.002 0.001811407834 110% => OK
Determiners: 0.152 0.113004496875 135% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.038 0.0255425247493 149% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.022 0.0127820249294 172% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2621.0 2731.13054187 96% => OK
No of words: 460.0 446.07635468 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.69782608696 6.12365571057 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6311565067 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.297826086957 0.378187486979 79% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.202173913043 0.287650121315 70% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.132608695652 0.208842608468 63% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.102173913043 0.135150697306 76% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57148828208 2.79052419416 92% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 207.018472906 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.44347826087 0.469332199767 94% => OK
Word variations: 49.2344927236 52.1807786196 94% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 21.9047619048 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.1803929565 57.7814097925 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.80952381 141.986410481 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9047619048 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.809523809524 0.724660767414 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 42.1221532091 51.9672348444 81% => OK
Elegance: 1.34615384615 1.8405768891 73% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.367973980296 0.441005458295 83% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.120948704461 0.135418324435 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.119685171928 0.0829849096947 144% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.544162877749 0.58762219726 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.168080584394 0.147661913831 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.141029828127 0.193483328276 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103575316423 0.0970749176394 107% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.480273030343 0.42659136922 113% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0638086269682 0.0774707102158 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.263996252761 0.312017818177 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0531086943387 0.0698173142475 76% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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 by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.