"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.
This argument is well presented yet far-fetched. It lays a claim that the citizens of Forsythe have adopted more healthful lifestyles. Nevertheless, due to several flaws after close scrutiny, the argument has to establish some pieces of evidence to make the statement more convincing.
First of all, a problem arises in this argument that the author says the residents are more closely to government nutritional suggestions. However, this contention cannot indicate how much close to suggestions the residents are. We would never know whether the people only change one or two eating habits or even few diets recipes. Hence, without accounting for and ruling out other likely scenarios, by no means could the author contend that the citizens have adopted more healthful lifestyles.
In addition, even though the writer may be able to provide us with enough information to infer a solution to the above problem, this argument is still ill-conceived. Another problem is the increase in sales of food products containing kiran is not directly showing that this all food products are going to be eaten by Forsythe's people. Kiran might really help people to keep their health, yet it is entirely possible that the citizens buy them but do not eat them. Alternatively, this increase is because other towns' citizens will go to Forsythe to buy the food due to such food might not be produced in their towns. In order to confirm his point of view, the writer should pay close heed to as well as address the representative probability mentioned above. Only the specific data that who buy the food and eat them is the key to bolstering his advice.
Ultimately, even if the previous assumptions might turn out to be supported by subsequently detailed illustration, a crucial problem remains that the sales of sulia are decreasing, which represent people in Forsythe gradually have adopted the health habits of eating. However, this is meaningless since the few of the most healthy citizens eat it, does not mean sulia is not health. In this light, it is reasonable to cast doubts upon presumption which made by the author because presumption actually is inadequate in that if healthy people eat less some food means unhealthy, then many healthy young people do not like to eat vegetables, does it mean that vegetables are unhealthy? Pursuing this reasoning proves that the author has the responsibility to carefully consider his assumption and then provide cogent evidence to pave the way for a more reliable argument.
In hindsight, it seems precipitous for the writer to make the summary based on a sequence of problematic premises. To eliminate the implausibility of recommendation, the author must offer the more specific evidence mentioned on the above to make the argument more convincing.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- better: maybe government nutritional recommendations are different ten years ago
argument 2 -- better: a fourfold increase in sales of food products containing kiran may only mean kiran is getting cheaper.
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 457 350
No. of Characters: 2284 1500
No. of Different Words: 225 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.624 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.998 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.772 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 160 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.053 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.197 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.301 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.537 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.091 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 177, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: scrutiny
...evertheless, due to several flaws after close scrutiny, the argument has to establish some pie...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, hence, however, if, may, nevertheless, really, so, still, then, well, as to, in addition, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2331.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 457.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10065645514 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62358717085 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87402928626 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512035010941 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 735.3 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.3303230987 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.684210526 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0526315789 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.15789473684 5.70786347227 125% => OK
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 : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.206496008989 0.218282227539 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.069011545229 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0692770019237 0.0701772020484 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12225687628 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0463936724428 0.0628817314937 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.