The author of the claim concludes that regular dental checkup doesn't engender healthy teeth, based on the findings of a study. His evidence might hold water if the evidence he used were more robust but it teems with unstated assumptions. We can discuss at least three alternative explanations of the evidence provided in the prompt.
The children who visited the dentist more frequently in the United States might have better chances of preventing tooth decay. Even though the author cites the average visit to the dentist, it might be possible that the children visiting the dentist more than the average have good healthy teeth. Perhaps, some of them visit more than 5 times a year while a majority visit twice a year. It may be possible that the majority who seldom visit their dentist have higher rates of tooth decay. To fix this assumption and its possible explanation the author could provide more insightful data.
The author assumes that visiting a dentist is the only way to mitigate dental effects. While a dentist can help the child on the same level, there might be other factors that might exacerbate their condition. Perhaps children of the Himalayan region have healthy food habits. Maybe they have no access to chocolates and candies. They might even have healthier water which prevents them from excessive tooth decay. However, urban children with a higher level of tooth decay might teem with chocolates all the time. The author needs to provide evidence that the primary impetus behind good teeth is proper dental care.
Also, the author assumes the recent study is written in the stones and they are 100% correct. It might be possible that another study supplants the study the author cites. The author needs to mention the credibility of the study, and if not provided, is plastic to several possible explanations.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands has teamed with several unstated pieces of evidence. The assumptions if not addressed can be elaborated into several plausible alternative explanations, that if not substantiated, can seriously undermine the pervasiveness of the essay.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 348 350
No. of Characters: 1732 1500
No. of Different Words: 173 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.319 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.977 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.487 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 57 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 30 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.641 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.32 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.548 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.144 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 63, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...m concludes that regular dental checkup doesnt engender healthy teeth, based on the fi...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, while, at least, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 55.5748502994 58% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1780.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 347.0 441.139720559 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12968299712 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55576218992 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.518731988473 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 553.5 705.55239521 78% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.1653360664 57.8364921388 52% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 89.0 119.503703932 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.35 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.15 5.70786347227 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.126417105771 0.218282227539 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0439583454936 0.0743258471296 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0613099177801 0.0701772020484 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0590997697851 0.128457276422 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0569831367526 0.0628817314937 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.