The following report appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.
"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds represent the most frequently given reason for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid — a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil — as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."
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.
While the concern for the well-being of citizens is commended, it cannot be inferred from the information provided that the consumption of fish byproducts will prevent colds. As many a statistician will confirm, correlation does not prove causation. Lurking variables could be at play, the citizens may have other reasons for infrequent doctor visits, and the validity of the study should be noted.
It is possible that lurking variables are at fault for the decreased instances of colds. Other dietary factors may have been at play; these respondents may have a higher intake of immune boosting foods. Frequent handwashing has been shown to decrease occurrence of illness – perhaps the public health department led a recent campaign. Several lifestyle factors have been shown to boost immune response, such as adequate sleep and lower stress levels. With the information provided, it cannot be definitively proven that fish consumption causes improved health.
The study shows that East Merians visit the doctor less frequently for colds. However, it is not stated whether the study asked East Merians how frequently they contract colds. There may be other reasons East Merians choose to visit the doctor less frequently. Perhaps there are lower rates of insurance coverage discouraging people from visiting the doctor, or comparable rates of coverage but higher average deductibles. Perhaps the area is more rural and doctors are less accessible. There may even be cultural factors at play, such as a preference for homeopathic remedies.
Ichthaid may contain substances found in fish, but can the recommenders be certain that the component of fish that causes lower instances of disease is found in the supplement? This question assumes not only that fish consumption is reason East Merians contract fewer colds, but also that if the active ingredient is found in the supplement, it is a high enough dosage to be effective.
Lastly, the validity of the study should be brought into question. What was the method of response? Who was surveyed? What were the demographics of those studied and do they match those of our town? The elderly and children are most susceptible to illness; if East Meria has a larger proportion of young adults, perhaps the findings are not transferrable. Of the respondents, did the study analyze their individual fish intake? Higher rates of fish consumption in an area may not mean higher rates of fish consumption among respondents – especially if, say, respondents were selected in person as they were exiting a steakhouse.
With all of the above factors noted, efforts to affect the wellness behaviors of citizens should be continued – which may mean promotion of Ichthaid. Barring evidence that the product is detrimental, recommending its use for citizens it would raise awareness of the underlying issue and might lead people to engage in other evidence based wellness-promoting behaviors. The recommenders should focus on promoting evidence-based methods of disease prevention, at risk of losing the trust of the public and inadvertently fueling a movement similar to anti-vaxx which is rooted in distrust of healthcare professionals.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 501 350
No. of Characters: 2613 1500
No. of Different Words: 249 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.731 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.216 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.843 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 196 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 150 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 107 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 69 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.269 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.786 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.538 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.258 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.505 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.064 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 23, column 6, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...ere exiting a steakhouse. With all of the above factors noted, efforts to affect ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, lastly, may, so, well, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2706.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 504.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36904761905 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92205527488 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 258.0 204.123752495 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511904761905 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 812.7 705.55239521 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 57.8678355439 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.076923077 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3846153846 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.34615384615 5.70786347227 41% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => 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: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0446299770437 0.218282227539 20% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0141745860803 0.0743258471296 19% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.020421394116 0.0701772020484 29% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0226902318027 0.128457276422 18% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0222519314503 0.0628817314937 35% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.31 8.32208582834 112% => OK
difficult_words: 151.0 98.500998004 153% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.