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.
In the given argument appeared in a health magazine which talks about new healthful lifestyle adopted by the citizens of Forsythe. According a survey people adopted government nutritional recommendations in spit of they did ten years ago. Another point is sale of food products containing kiran has increased and sale of sulia decreased. Kiran is a substance in food that reduces cholesterol and it is indicated in a scientific study. The sulia is food which preferred by healthy citizens in regular diet. The argument has different loopholes which make it weaken.
Moreover, the writer talks about two different aspects together and did not mention the relationship between them. Citizens of Forsythe adopted new healthy lifestyle and recent survey indicate eating habit from lifestyle is somehow related to governmental nutritional recommendations. Secondly the sale of kiran and sulia food products. The writer did not mention that the new eating habits contain kiran which helps to stay healthy or sulia was not much beneficial. It is not compulsory that people started eating kiran and it reduces cholesterol which makes citizens healthy. This lack of relation makes the argument questionable.
Furthermore, the citizens have adopted more healthful lifestyle means they adopted healthy eating habits, exercise and yoga, work management, improved wearing, or may they have started spending time with family. There are different habits which collectively makes lifestyle so, the writer talks about only eating habits and there is no evidence which indicate the eating habits change the lifestyle of Forsythe citizens. This is again one of the major loopholes of the given argument.
Finally, the sale of kiran containing products increases shows so many possibilities such as quality of product, advertisement, fear of cholesterol, taste and popularity of the product etc. Similarly, the sale of sulia is reduces also reflects different possibilities such as no scientific proven effects, low quality, less popularity, and so on. The writer has not specified the reason for variances of sale. If we consider for a while that government nutritional recommends ate kiran and that the reason to increase the sale of kiran contained food, but it never indicates that it is the reason for sulia's decreased sale. Because the writer did not mention the comparison of sulia and kiran.
To sum up the discussion, above discussed loopholes makes the argument weak and immaterial. There is lack of evidences which proves relevant relationship among different points explained in the argument.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 10 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 403 350
No. of Characters: 2141 1500
No. of Different Words: 181 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.48 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.313 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.811 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 163 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.19 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.527 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.333 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.329 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.521 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.092 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, furthermore, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, similarly, so, while, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 12.9520958084 8% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2194.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 403.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.44416873449 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48049772903 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89222108932 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.471464019851 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 699.3 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.2131874353 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.7272727273 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3181818182 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.170856362272 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0478215062985 0.0743258471296 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.071663478995 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100883469736 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.077903851681 0.0628817314937 124% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.