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.
International development organization reports that, in Tagus, vitamin A deficiency among people. In addition that, organization engineered a new breed of millet, that is high in vitamin A. Therefore, the author recommends to Tagus people and government, they should do everything for combat vitamin A deficiency. But, the author failed to provide concrete example that support their recommendation.
First, the author cites that International development organization reports regarding deficiency of vitamin A among Tagus people. Here, the author did not provide any numeric information that supports this assertion. In addition that, organization suggest that a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. Again the author does not give any strong evidence that supports new breed of millet is high in vitamin A. Therefore, the author needs to elaborate information and give strong evidence that support this argument.
Second, the author states that seeds of millet is more costly. In addition that, farmers will be paid subsidies for farming millet. Here, the author need to compare different types of seeds or provide information how much it costly. The author should be give information
regarding subsidies for farming millet.Also, this statement does not cited by Tagus government.
Then, the author quickly jumped to conclusion, To combat vitamin A deficiency, the government of Tagus should do everything it can to promote this new type of millet. Here, the author does not state what is effect of this decision.
In conclusion, the author argument failed to convince Tagus people and Tagus government. To evaluate the author recommendation, the author need to take a note of all above points that undermine his argument, therefore, give concrete examples and evidences. Hence, it would be not wise to take any decision.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 102, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[2]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: addition,
..., vitamin A deficiency among people. In addition that, organization engineered a new bre...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 221, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[2]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: addition,
...mation that supports this assertion. In addition that, organization suggest that a new b...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 67, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[2]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: addition,
...that seeds of millet is more costly. In addition that, farmers will be paid subsidies fo...
^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 40, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Also
... regarding subsidies for farming millet.Also, this statement does not cited by Tagus...
^^^^
Line 6, column 70, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'cite'
Suggestion: cite
...ng millet.Also, this statement does not cited by Tagus government. Then, the auth...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, if, regarding, second, so, then, therefore, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 19.6327345309 36% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1556.0 2260.96107784 69% => OK
No of words: 285.0 441.139720559 65% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.45964912281 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.56307096286 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9533022974 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 123.0 204.123752495 60% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.431578947368 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 490.5 705.55239521 70% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.2379272072 57.8364921388 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 86.4444444444 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.8333333333 23.324526521 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.27777777778 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.340964875812 0.218282227539 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.132965314725 0.0743258471296 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103856886374 0.0701772020484 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.191381057114 0.128457276422 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0858618150262 0.0628817314937 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 48.3550499002 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.09 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.76 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 98.500998004 62% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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 by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.