The following appeared in the Health section of the Greenhorne Gazette.
"Motilac is a substance that occurs naturally in the human digestive tract. Many consumers of dietary supplements containing motilac report significant easing of digestive discomfort after just a few weeks of use. Among Greenhorne residents, the consumption of motilac supplements has increased 80% over the last seven years. Last year, Greenhorne's five hospitals reported fewer cases of serious gastrointestinal disorders than any year on record. Meanwhile, sales of motilac supplements are declining in the neighboring town of Etolin. Notably, hospitals in Etolin report a steady increase in the last two years in patients experiencing a wide range of distressing gastrointestinal symptoms. The clear explanation of these trends is that motilac is effective in preventing many serious gastrointestinal disorders."
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
In the above memo, the author argues that motilac is effective in preventing gastrointestinal disorders. The author supports his argument based on the report, which indicates a steady increase in the usage of motilac supplements among the Greenhorne residents and fewer cases of serious gastrointestinal disorders. Furthermore, the author supports his argument by stating that last year after reducing motilac consumption in the nearby town Etolin, the number of cases of gastrointestinal disorder was augmented significantly. However, before evaluating the author’s argument three unstated assumptions need to evaluate.
Firstly, the author argues that motilac will help to reduce gastrointestinal disorders based on the report from the people but the author does not provide any necessitate evidence regarding the authenticity of the people’s reporting. There is a possibility that only 20 people reported that after consuming motilac their gastrointestinal problems were curtailed. Then stating a conclusion on the basis of a reporting of a very small sample size is seriously weakened. If the above scenario is true, then the author's argument holds no water. If the author is able to provide more evidence perhaps in the form of a scientific research study of motilac effect on humans then it will be possible to evaluate the author’s argument to a certain extent.
Secondly, the author states that after consuming motilac fewer people in the Greenhouse suffer from gastrointestinal disorders and five hospitals in Greenhouse reported fewer cases of intestinal disorders without any admissible evidence. There is a possibility that most people do not prefer to go to the hospital if they suffer from gastrointestinal disorders. In a recent study revealed that though motilac helps to reduce gastrointestinal disorders, it has other side effects on the human body. Then, using motilac is not advisable and the author’s argument is seriously weakened. If the author is able to provide more evidence perhaps in the form of a statistical data chart of the patients of Greenhouse hospitals then the author’s argument may have strengthened.
Thirdly, the author relates the increasing number of patients suffering from gastrointestinal disorders in the nearby town Etolin with the reducing number of consuming matilac supplements without any veritable evidence. Maybe the polluted water is the main reason for the increasing number of patients in the nearby town. Perhaps most of the people in the nearby town have a penchant for eating junk food, then one can not incriminate the dwindle of matilac consumption for the proliferation of gastrointestinal disorders in the town. The author must provide more justifiable evidence perhaps in the form of a research study about the cause of the increasing number of patients in the nearby town, to strengthen his argument.
In the conclusion, the author’s argument that stands now is seriously flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author can rectify the three unstated assumptions above and offer more evidence perhaps in the form of a systematic research study then it will be possible to evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation that by consuming motilac supplements people will suffer less from gastrointestinal disorders.
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 509, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...If the above scenario is true, then the authors argument holds no water. If the author ...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 542, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...en the authors argument holds no water. If the author is able to provide more evid...
^^
Line 3, column 585, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...uthor’s argument is seriously weakened. If the author is able to provide more evid...
^^
Line 4, column 436, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...junk food, then one can not incriminate the dwindle of matilac consumption for the prolifer...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 55.5748502994 142% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2821.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 512.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.509765625 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23371858432 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.40234375 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 891.0 705.55239521 126% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.4257636927 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.05 119.503703932 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.25 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0969400475543 0.218282227539 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0411252821052 0.0743258471296 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0390649974442 0.0701772020484 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0690938570615 0.128457276422 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0303065839044 0.0628817314937 48% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 14.3799401198 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 12.5979740519 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 509, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...If the above scenario is true, then the authors argument holds no water. If the author ...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 542, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...en the authors argument holds no water. If the author is able to provide more evid...
^^
Line 3, column 585, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...uthor’s argument is seriously weakened. If the author is able to provide more evid...
^^
Line 4, column 436, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...junk food, then one can not incriminate the dwindle of matilac consumption for the prolifer...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 55.5748502994 142% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2821.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 512.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.509765625 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23371858432 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.40234375 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 891.0 705.55239521 126% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.4257636927 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.05 119.503703932 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.25 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0969400475543 0.218282227539 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0411252821052 0.0743258471296 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0390649974442 0.0701772020484 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0690938570615 0.128457276422 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0303065839044 0.0628817314937 48% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 14.3799401198 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 12.5979740519 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => 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.