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 author of the argument concludes that the government of Tagus should patronize the promotion of a new breed of millet to fight against the deficiency of vitamin A. To buttress the conclusion, the author has cited evidence that Millet is a potential source with high percentage of vitamin A, farmers can get subsidies to farm the new breed and people are likely to be adopted with new one as their vitamin A substitutes. Although the claim is seemingly plausible, however, the argument is flawed with some unwarranted assumptions. To strengthen the claim, the author must need to clarify some questions with authentic evidence.
To begin, the author needs to clarify that what the origin of the international development organization is. Does it have any certification as an development organization? Moreover, the organization states that the new breed of millet is having a high percentage of vitamin A. But, there is no authentic information regarding this. The author needs to evaluate that whether the new breed is actually a good source of vitamin A.
Secondly, the author surmises the assumption that the new breed of millet is the only candidate to act against the vitamin A deficiency. However, this is not necessairly true. there may be some other candidates, so the author needs to evaluate with proper information that millet is the only one candiate
Thirdly, the author should clarify that who is going to provide subsidy to the farmers. As it is said that new type of millet will cost more, so it is necessary to have subsidy. However, if there is no potential candidate to subsidize the farmers then the production of new millet might be deterred.
Finally, the author must evaluate that how people of Tagus adopt the new breed of millet. Admittedly, the millet is a staple one in Tagus, but, that does not mean that new breed of millet will be welcomed equally by them. Unless providing the evidence that explicitly inform us why people will adopt the new breed as like as previous ones, the argument is flawed and open to debate.
To sum up, the above discussion depicts that the author needs to clarify i) the authenticity of the organization and validity of its statement, ii) who will provide subsidy to the farmers to farm the new breed of millet, and iii) why people will readily adopt the new one to evaluate the argument. In the absence of the evidence in support of these clarifications, the claim is susceptible to criticism.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: However, this is not necessairly true. there may be some other candidates, so the author needs to evaluate with proper information that millet is the only one candiate
Error: necessairly Suggestion: necessarily
Error: candiate Suggestion: candidate
---------------
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- maybe
argument 3 -- not OK. better to say: maybe the cost is over subsidies.
argument 3 -- not exactly. better to say: maybe people don't' like the taste.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 02
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 418 350
No. of Characters: 1991 1500
No. of Different Words: 170 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.522 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.763 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.724 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.588 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.492 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.384 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.631 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.156 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 410, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'A substitute' or simply 'substitutes'?
Suggestion: A substitute; Substitutes
...e adopted with new one as their vitamin A substitutes. Although the claim is seemingly plausi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 144, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...n is. Does it have any certification as an development organization? Moreover, the...
^^
Line 3, column 428, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... is actually a good source of vitamin A. Secondly, the author surmises the assump...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 177, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: There
... However, this is not necessairly true. there may be some other candidates, so the au...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2050.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 418.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.9043062201 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52162009685 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81034808577 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.416267942584 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 658.8 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.720451498 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.894736842 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.10526315789 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.392164187059 0.218282227539 180% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.13614678067 0.0743258471296 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0985141479939 0.0701772020484 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.225274907036 0.128457276422 175% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0420369588009 0.0628817314937 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.14 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
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.