The following appeared in a health magazine.
"The citizens of Forsythe have adopted more healthful lifestyles. Their responses to a recent
survey show that in their eating habits they conform more closely to government nutritional
recommendations than they did ten years ago. Furthermore, there has been a fourfold increase
in sales of food products containing kiran, a substance that a scientific study has shown
reduces cholesterol. This trend is also evident in reduced sales of sulia, a food that few of the
most healthy citizens regularly eat."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the
argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The author concludes that the residents of Forsythe have adopted more healthful lifestyles. The conclusion is mainly based on a fourfold increase in sales of food products containing kiran, which can reduce cholesterol, and a decline in the sales of sulia, a food that few of healthy citizens regularly eat. Nevertheless, some specific proofs need to be offered to better evaluate the argument.
The author mentions that there has been a fourfold climb in the sales of food products containing kiran, which can reduce cholesterol and infers that the residents of Forsythe eat more healthily than before. Apparently, behind the inference lies the assumption that food products containing kiran are entirely healthful and they are all consumed by the citizens of Forsythe. However, the author fails to persuade me that the assumption is justifiable without some further credence being afforded. In all likelihood, a majority of such kind of food products have severe side effects or they contain excessive addictive and preservatives, which means that their negative impacts far outweigh the benefits of reducing cholesterol. It is also probable that most of them are consumed by the travelers while not popular in the local area, which engender that the citizens in Forsythe may never eat them. Under these scenarios, the increase in sales of this kind of food fails to represent the healthy diets of the local people.
Besides, the author also demonstrates that the sales of sulia, a food that few of the most healthy citizens regularly eat, have decreased. Basing on this decrease, the author deduces that the residents of Forsythe are certainly eating more healthily, which is far-fetched. It is entirely possible that people do not buy sulia merely because they cannot afford this extremely expensive food, or they just dislike the taste of it rather than consider it as unhealthy food. Besides, we can never neglect the possibility that people are likely to eat more other kinds of junk food, such as chips or hamburgers. All of these aforementioned probabilities undermine the inference. It is not ascertained that people in Forsythe have healthier diets than before. Hence, more specific credence should be provided to check the validity of the argument.
On the basis that citizens of Forsythe eat more healthily than they did in the past, it is still hasty to conclude that people have adopted more healthful lifestyles in absence of specific evidence. The conclusion is fraught with dubious assumptions that the healthy diets are fully representative of healthy lifestyles. We all know the healthy lifestyles should be evaluated from a myriad of aspects rather than merely eating habits. It is highly likely that residents of Forsythe are reluctant to do exercises regularly, which engenders a high risk of obesity among them. Besides, they are also likely to sleep at midnight. The inadequacy of sleep may bring about some severe disease, such as heart diseases and sometimes may even threaten their lives. Consequently, the healthier eating habit, in itself, cannot sufficiently prove the validity of the conclusion without more credence.
Overall, the argument may be comprehensive, some specific proofs need to be released to better evaluate the argument. In that case, the argument and the conclusion may be more reasoning and convincing.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 537 350
No. of Characters: 2757 1500
No. of Different Words: 222 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.814 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.134 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.707 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 206 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 163 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 131 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.48 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.338 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.305 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.474 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.091 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, besides, consequently, hence, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, while, kind of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 26.0 13.6137724551 191% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 28.8173652695 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2836.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 537.0 441.139720559 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28119180633 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81386128306 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8069362803 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.433891992551 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 900.0 705.55239521 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.394919559 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.44 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.48 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.56 5.70786347227 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.223554912738 0.218282227539 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.069899737273 0.0743258471296 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0760316598009 0.0701772020484 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134931571727 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0626319505945 0.0628817314937 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 98.500998004 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.