The author asserts that the traditional remedy of lavender scent has proven effective for the treatment of insomnia based on the experiment with lavender-scented pillows for three weeks. However, the author's argument about the effectiveness of lavender on insomnia is unpersuasive since it is based on several questionable assumptions.
First, the author assumes that the 30 volunteers can represent the general people with the disease of insomnia. However, this might not necessarily true. If the volunteers have single-ethnicity, similar body types, it would be hard to apply the result to the general people with different body types and ethnicities. It is likely that the lavender might not show the same positive effect on all kinds of people. Therefore, the author should provide information related to the body type of the volunteers in the experiment to strengthen the argument.
Secondly, the author presumes that the experiment result based on the feeling of volunteers is reliable. However, this experimental data is too vague to determine the effectiveness of lavender on them. It is likely that the subjects of the experiment cannot remember how much they were tired compared to one or two weeks ago. Besides, it is uncertain how the experimenter could decide the soundness of the participants with the electronic monitoring. Therefore, the author should substantiate its argument by providing an objective and concrete method to determine the sleeping patterns of the participants.
Lastly, the author supposes that the only reason for the better quality of sleeping in the third week was the lavender scent. However, there can be alternative reasons for the difference. It is likely that the experimenters got used to the experiment condition and environment that they could get asleep more deeply. In addition, it is possible that the effectiveness of medication could occur in two weeks term. Likewise, there might be other conditions which can explain the improvement in the result. Therefore, the author should provide information concerning the other conditions which might have affected on the sleeping patterns of the participants.
To sum up, the author's argument about the efficacy of lavender scent on the cure of insomnia needs further proof related to the body types of volunteers, objective methods of experiments, and the alternative reasons for the result to support the argument.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK. In GRE, we have to accept all data or evidence are true. We can argue against the condition which is 'in a controlled room.'
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
more arguments:
maybe it is not valid after three weeks.
-----------------
For argument essays, We may consider TLPE too:
T means Time: it works only in 3 weeks (suppose it is valid)
L means Location: it works in a controlled room
P means People: it has only 30 people
E means Event: maybe other reasons caused the effectiveness
----------------------
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 377 350
No. of Characters: 1995 1500
No. of Different Words: 170 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.406 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.292 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.991 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 150 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.842 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.35 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.346 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.537 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.089 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 202, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...d pillows for three weeks. However, the authors argument about the effectiveness of lav...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 16, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...of the participants. To sum up, the authors argument about the efficacy of lavender...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, first, however, if, lastly, likewise, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, in addition, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2046.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 377.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.42705570292 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4064143971 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07692307692 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.464190981432 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 644.4 705.55239521 91% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => 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: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.9256293904 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.684210526 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8421052632 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.05263157895 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.227944583291 0.218282227539 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0698109955109 0.0743258471296 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0979478291232 0.0701772020484 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147901780059 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102300872463 0.0628817314937 163% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.