A recent study indicates that children living in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal have lower levels of tooth decay than children living in suburban areas in the United States, despite the fact that people in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal receive little to no professional dental care, while people in suburban areas in the United States see a dentist an average of 1.25 times per year. Thus, regular dental care is not helpful in preventing tooth decay.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The author compares the dental hygiene between children in Nepal with suburban children in the United States. He draws the conclusion that regular dental care is not helpful in preventing tooth decay. His conclusion is dubious because it's only evidence is based on an anology that is invalid.
The author states that Nepal children have lower level of tooth decay than suburban children in the US. What bases can the two groups be compared? The author weakly establishes the similarity between the two groups by the environment in which they live in. Living in a mountain region is not the same as living in a suburban area in the US. Although both rurual, the habits and diets are completely different. Without furthur evidence to establish the similarity more concretely, the study of tooth decay in Nepalese children can not be used as support for the author's conclusion.
Even if we assume that the two groups can be compared, the author's assertion is still flawed because his comparison is between children while his conclusion is about dental care in general. What are the difference between the level of tooth decay among adults in the two groups? Dental care is more effective when it is maintain from childhood through adulthood. The author does not provide evidence that compares the tooth decay between Nepal adults and US suburban adults. Therefore, without more analysis, he can not state that dental care is not useful in preventing tooth decay.
Moreover, the author only knows that people in Nepal receives no professional dental care. However, it is possible that they partake in daily routines that care for their teeth becaus they can't afford to see a regular dentist. So, we do not know if the people of Nepal does not participate in regular dental care even if they don't seek professional care.
In conclusion, the author's statements is invalid to the readers due to multiple reasons. Without further details and supporting evidences, the author can not claim that regular dental care is not helpful in preventing tooth decay.
Sentence: Dental care is more effective when it is maintain from childhood through adulthood.
Description: The token is is not usually followed by a verb, base: uninflected present, imperative or infinitive
Suggestion: Refer to is and maintain
Sentence: His conclusion is dubious because it's only evidence is based on an anology that is invalid.
Error: anology Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Although both rurual, the habits and diets are completely different.
Error: rurual Suggestion: rural
Sentence: Without furthur evidence to establish the similarity more concretely, the study of tooth decay in Nepalese children can not be used as support for the author's conclusion.
Error: furthur Suggestion: further
Sentence: However, it is possible that they partake in daily routines that care for their teeth becaus they can't afford to see a regular dentist.
Error: becaus Suggestion: because
flaws:
No. of Different Words: 157 200
Sentence Length SD: 5.698 7.5
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 343 350
No. of Characters: 1679 1500
No. of Different Words: 157 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.304 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.895 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.47 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 130 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.053 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.698 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.316 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.359 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.555 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.132 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5