While it is true that the government of Targus should do something to address the problem of vitamin A deficiency among its citizen, the author's conclusion that the way to solve this issue through the promotion of a new breed of millet is founded on tenuous arguments.
The author states that although the new type of millet costs more than conventional type, farmers will be paid subsidies for farming the new variety of millet. There is an unstated assumption that the government of Targus will be providing this subsidy. However, it is unclear whether the government of Targus has the financial and economical capability of handing out subsidies, given that the author acknowledges the fact that Tagus is an 'impoverished nation'. The author will have to show evidence that the goverment of Targus can and will provide subsidies for the farmer, or that the subsidies will come from other sources, perhaps the international development organization who engineered the new breed of millet
The author assumes that farmers will definitely grow this new breed of millet if they will be paid subsidies. However, the effectiveness of this solution is unclear considering if the new breed of millet has less commercial value than the current breed of millet, perhaps owing to lesser demands by consumers. Farmers in Targus will most likely not want to grow this new breed of millet if it means that the subsidies will not be able to offset their lost in profits and higher operating cost due to the cost of the new type of millet. This itself raises another problem if the millet consumed locally are not actually sourced from Targus but are imported in from neighbouring countries. If this is the case, it is unclear how the cultivation of the new breed of millet will help vitamin A deficiency in the country.
Furthermore, the author states that vitamin A deficiency will be solved through the consumption of the new breed of millet since millet is already a staple food in Tagus. While it might seem like a reasonable assumption, if vitamin A deficiency is found chiefly amongst citizens of Targus who doesn't consume millet on a regular basis, this solution will clearly not address the problem. There are also other factors such as variation in taste and texture of the new millet which might affect the uptake of the consumption of the new breed of millet. All these possible reasonings will only serve to weaken the author's argument.
In summary, it is clear that the author's recommendation is based on tenuous claims and his or her arguments are rife with loopholes and unstated assumptions. The onus is on the author to back each arguments with solid evidences and reasonings, else the author will have a hard time convincing the government of Targus to invest 'everything they can' to promote this new type of millet.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 138, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...min A deficiency among its citizen, the authors conclusion that the way to solve this i...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 294, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... chiefly amongst citizens of Targus who doesnt consume millet on a regular basis, this...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 388, Rule ID: ALSO_OTHER[1]
Message: Use simply 'there are other' or 'there are also'
Suggestion: There are other; There are also
...n will clearly not address the problem. There are also other factors such as variation in taste and ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 611, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...easonings will only serve to weaken the authors argument. In summary, it is clear th...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 34, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nt. In summary, it is clear that the authors recommendation is based on tenuous clai...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'but', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'while', 'in summary', 'such as', 'it is true']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.260355029586 0.25644967241 102% => OK
Verbs: 0.147928994083 0.15541462614 95% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0887573964497 0.0836205057962 106% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0355029585799 0.0520304965353 68% => OK
Pronouns: 0.025641025641 0.0272364105082 94% => OK
Prepositions: 0.153846153846 0.125424944231 123% => OK
Participles: 0.0355029585799 0.0416121511921 85% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.68824463119 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0216962524655 0.026700313972 81% => OK
Particles: 0.00197238658777 0.001811407834 109% => OK
Determiners: 0.132149901381 0.113004496875 117% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0374753451677 0.0255425247493 147% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00788954635108 0.0127820249294 62% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2827.0 2731.13054187 104% => OK
No of words: 478.0 446.07635468 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.91422594142 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.57801047555 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.364016736402 0.378187486979 96% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.267782426778 0.287650121315 93% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.1589958159 0.208842608468 76% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.119246861925 0.135150697306 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68824463119 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 207.018472906 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.443514644351 0.469332199767 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 49.8390751701 52.1807786196 96% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 20.039408867 75% => OK
Sentence length: 31.8666666667 23.2022227129 137% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.2093121544 57.7814097925 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 188.466666667 141.986410481 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.8666666667 23.2022227129 137% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.733333333333 0.724660767414 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 58.6449093445 51.9672348444 113% => OK
Elegance: 2.15094339623 1.8405768891 117% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.505757601688 0.441005458295 115% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.169763222186 0.135418324435 125% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0869432635189 0.0829849096947 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.679279643317 0.58762219726 116% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.163967813802 0.147661913831 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.251876135238 0.193483328276 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120729318509 0.0970749176394 124% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.571186685789 0.42659136922 134% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0949436488335 0.0774707102158 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.352913812606 0.312017818177 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0986331024578 0.0698173142475 141% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
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: 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.