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.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in
order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is
based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would
help to evaluate the recommendation.
The argument that nosinia could be used to cure severe allergy symptoms may seem logical at first glance due to the claims the author used in underpinning this argument. However, the author failed to consider some salient points which could be used to either prop or undermine the argument. With the negletion of these points, that argument is totally flawed. Thus, some questions need to be answered in order to determine the validity of this argument.
Firstly, the author assumed the amount of people involved in the analogy is sufficient enough to determine the effectiveness of both Nosinia and the placebo. The argument stated that 95 men and women with seasonal allegies were studied. How are these ninety five people selected? What was used to determine the amount of people selected in order to investigate the effectiveness of both the nosinia and the placebo? With the author’s failure in providing this signigicant information, the argument seems flawed.
Secondly, the author failed to provide initial health information of the participants. From the argument, the author stated that the participants were people with “seasonal” allergies to ragweed pollen. Being seasonal means these participants do not experience frequently but at a particular period of time. Thus, were these participants seriously affected by these symptoms or were they mildly affected by these symptoms? Were the symptons conspicuous during the administration of nosinia? Perhaps, the drug might have been administered in the absence of the symptom. Thus, assuming the participants were healthier due to the use of nosinia is incongruous unless these questions are answered.
Thirdly, the author failed to show if nosinia was the only drug used in treating severe allergy symptoms. Were there no other drugs administered with nosinia? Were the participants on other medications before the use nosinia? How was nosinia administered and how was placebo administered? Nothing in the argument indicated that the participants’ use of only nosinia led to the participant’s improved health. Nosinia might have been administered with some other anodynes or other elixirs. Thus, unless these questions are answered, the argument remains invalid.
However, for the author to bolster this argument, the author needs to provide answer to questions about the determination of amount of people used in investigating the effectiveness of both the placebo and nosinia. Also, the author need to provide answer to questions about the participants’ wellbeing when the drug was administered. Apart from this, the author also need to answer questions regariding the administration of nosinia; was it the only drug administered? The answers to this questions will point whether the argument is valid or invalid.
In conclusion, the argument that nosinia could be used to cure severe allergy symptoms left several questions unanswered which seriously weakens its validity. Unless answers are provided to these questions, the argument remains invalid. Thus, the author might be making a major mistake by assuming that nosinia is an effective antidote for severe allergy symptons.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 30 15
No. of Words: 487 350
No. of Characters: 2596 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.698 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.331 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.816 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 212 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 161 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 105 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.233 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.291 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.323 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.521 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.106 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 293, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...perience frequently but at a particular period of time. Thus, were these participants seriousl...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 485, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... only drug administered? The answers to this questions will point whether the argume...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, well, apart from, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2683.0 2260.96107784 119% => OK
No of words: 487.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50924024641 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69766713281 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97672582886 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.414784394251 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 847.8 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.9403039875 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.4333333333 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2333333333 23.324526521 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 6.88822355289 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.67664670659 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.199804699951 0.218282227539 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0666575675304 0.0743258471296 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0471311228222 0.0701772020484 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124810581926 0.128457276422 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0405162631144 0.0628817314937 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.38 12.5979740519 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 98.500998004 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.