The following appeared in a health newsletter.
"Nosinia is an herb that many users report to be as effective as prescription medications at fighting allergy symptoms. Researchers recently compared Nosinia to a placebo in 95 men and women with seasonal allergies to ragweed pollen. Participants in the study reported that neither Nosinia nor the placebo offered significant relief. However, for the most severe allergy symptoms, the researchers reported that Nosinia was more effective than the placebo in providing relief. Furthermore, at the end of the study, participants given Nosinia were more likely than participants given a placebo to report feeling healthier.We therefore recommend using Nosinia to help with your severe allergy symptoms.
In this argument, the arguer recommends using Nosinia to help with the severe allergy symptoms. To justify this recommendation, the arguer cites a research report that Nosinia was more effective than the placebo in providing relief, which may seem reasonable at first glance. However, with a series of dubious and poor evidences, this recommendation fails to be wholly persuasive as it stands.
A significant problem involved in this [recommendation] is that the arguer simply assumes that Nosinia is more effective than placebo for people who have severe allergies. Obviously, the arguer cannot substantiate this crucial assumption without providing credible evidence. To be more specific, the newsletter did not provide any information that was based on accurate data collection. From my perspective, it is possible that placebo functions better than Nosinia for more people. The newsletter did not mention how they select the participants, and the survey’s sample is not sufficient in size or representative of the quality of Nosinia. For that matter, this survey is not strong enough to establish causation between Nosinia and placebo. Given the above information, it is clear that the author should provide more credible evidence, and rule out other possible alternative explanations in order to strengthen his argument.
Additionally, it’s not safe to unfairly assume without substantiation that Nosinia was more effective than the placebo in providing relief for the most severe allergy symptoms. Since placebo also has not proved as effective treatment for allergic patients, the credibility of the participants' report is invalid. Thus, we could not conclude that Nosinia is effective based on the participants' report. The author should provide more convincing evidence to support this assumption. Otherwise, there is little chance that this unsolid assumption can be bolstered.
Finally, even if the forgoing assumptions on which the conclusion is based on are reasonable, the argument merely relies on the assumption that participants given Nosinia reported healthier than the participants given a placebo. However, we are not informed with any persuasive and professional evidence. In fact, it could turn out to be the case that the participants given a placebo will report more healthier if a more conductive survey will be addressed. Also, the participants feeling healthier doesn’t mean they become healthier physically. It still lacks evidence to support the results that the Nosinia will make patients more healthier than the placebo. If so, anyone would be reluctant to accept the arguer's recommendation.
To summarize the information I have mentioned above, there are undoubtedly many obvious flaws that need to be marshaled before the proposal can be seriously scrutinized. Otherwise, any impetuous implementation of the recommendation would be unlikely to have the desired consequence. This health newsletter merely provides credible resources or efficient data, which is not qualified to prove the recommendation.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 23 15
No. of Words: 460 350
No. of Characters: 2521 1500
No. of Different Words: 216 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.631 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.48 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.02 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 205 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 160 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 115 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 83 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.354 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.435 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.307 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.499 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.075 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 580, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: sufficient
...cipants, and the survey’s sample is not sufficient in size or representative of the quality of Nos...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 398, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'healthier' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: healthier
...articipants given a placebo will report more healthier if a more conductive survey will be add...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 631, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'healthier' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: healthier
...lts that the Nosinia will make patients more healthier than the placebo. If so, anyone would b...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 711, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
...anyone would be reluctant to accept the arguers recommendation. To summarize the inf...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, may, so, still, then, thus, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2596.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 458.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.66812227074 5.12650576532 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62611441266 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.18510985252 2.78398813304 114% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.491266375546 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 821.7 705.55239521 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.7887309186 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.869565217 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9130434783 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.04347826087 5.70786347227 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => 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: 0.209497223434 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0680033983385 0.0743258471296 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0443688811857 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132294073171 0.128457276422 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0362117696914 0.0628817314937 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 48.3550499002 73% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.61 12.5979740519 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 98.500998004 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => 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.