The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a farming publication.
With continuing publicity about the need for healthful diets, and with new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar, nationwide demand for sugar will no doubt decline. Therefore, farmers in our state should use the land on which they currently grow sugar cane to grow peanuts, a food that is rich in protein and low in sugar . Farmers in the neighboring country of Palin greatly increased their production of peanuts last year, and their total revenues from the crop were quite high.
The letter sender believes that the demand for the sugar will plummet in the near future;therefore, he posits to replace sugar cane cultivation with the peanut cultivation in his state. He furnishes the example of neighboring country of Palin in an attempt to shore up his claim: peanut cultivation will be more successful. The premise supplied by him might be true, on scrupulous assay of the letter, many hard facts which could have made his argument more robust is truly lacking, however. As a result, the assumption and the finally derived conclusion sounds utterly skeptical. Therefore, before I accede to his recommendation, I have following doubts.
Firstly, and probably most importantly, while reading between the lines it can be inferred that the letter sender unfairly assumes that peanut cultivation success in Palin will guarantee its success in his state too. However, he has not given any information, or the reasons - owing to which he assumed this. The fundamental soil quality, its PH value, organic matter contents, irrigation status might be different between the soils of these two states. The soil of Palin might be more suitable for peanut - rather than sugar cane - due to which peanut cultivation became to be successful there. In contrast, the soil of his state might not be of same characteristics. Hence, the letter sender should address this concern giving more explicit information in this regard.
Furthermore, the letter sender clearly mentions that TOO much sugar eating is harmful for health; it does not mean people should not eat sugar, rather it means people should not take excessive amount of sugar. There might be a situation in his state where people take sugar at only healthy and prescribed quantity, however, they might be eating lots of candies, ice-creams and other products consist of sugar. In this situation, people will not stop buying sugar - rather they will stop overeating of other sugary products. Consequently, sugar demand might not decrease and the other sweet product's demand may go down. In this context, his argument might be abortive from the scratch. Thus, the letter sender should further explicate about the sugar eating demeanor of hoi polloi of his state.
Finally, the reason why the letter writer recommended exclusively peanut is anything but clear: there might be several other alternative crops to the sugar cane. He should have elucidated whether it has merely economical reasons or something ecological reasons to boot. There might be several high value crops available in the market which could would be really lucrative to farmers. Additionally, it is prevalent that any ecology and the farming culture supports several flora species. In such context, the writer should make clear, why exclusively peanut.
To recapitulate, many specifics still need to be discussed regarding the suggestion put forwarded by the letter sender. He should not assume that success of other country can be duplicated in his state too in the same fruitful manner. In order to prop up his argument, he should address concerns raised above in a well-elaborated fashion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 381, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lied by him might be true, on scrupulous assay of the letter, many hard facts whi...
^^
Line 3, column 96, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...etween the lines it can be inferred that the letter sender unfairly assumes that ...
^^
Line 7, column 89, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ended exclusively peanut is anything but clear: there might be several other alte...
^^
Line 7, column 212, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
...d have elucidated whether it has merely economical reasons or something ecological reasons...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 310, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a well-elaborated fashion" with adverb for "well-elaborated"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...he should address concerns raised above in a well-elaborated fashion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'consequently', 'finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'really', 'regarding', 'so', 'still', 'therefore', 'thus', 'well', 'while', 'in contrast', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.241622574956 0.25644967241 94% => OK
Verbs: 0.134038800705 0.15541462614 86% => OK
Adjectives: 0.102292768959 0.0836205057962 122% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0705467372134 0.0520304965353 136% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0529100529101 0.0272364105082 194% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.0952380952381 0.125424944231 76% => OK
Participles: 0.031746031746 0.0416121511921 76% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.74571583733 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Infinitives: 0.021164021164 0.026700313972 79% => OK
Particles: 0.00529100529101 0.001811407834 292% => OK
Determiners: 0.0776014109347 0.113004496875 69% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0511463844797 0.0255425247493 200% => Less modal verbs wanted (like 'must , shall , will , should , would , can , could , may , and might').
WH_determiners: 0.0123456790123 0.0127820249294 97% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3137.0 2731.13054187 115% => OK
No of words: 506.0 446.07635468 113% => OK
Chars per words: 6.19960474308 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7428307748 4.57801047555 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.413043478261 0.378187486979 109% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.272727272727 0.287650121315 95% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.181818181818 0.208842608468 87% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.116600790514 0.135150697306 86% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74571583733 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Unique words: 260.0 207.018472906 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.513833992095 0.469332199767 109% => OK
Word variations: 61.2860850627 52.1807786196 117% => OK
How many sentences: 25.0 20.039408867 125% => OK
Sentence length: 20.24 23.2022227129 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.1708049496 57.7814097925 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.48 141.986410481 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.24 23.2022227129 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.8 0.724660767414 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 47.5127272727 51.9672348444 91% => OK
Elegance: 1.43150684932 1.8405768891 78% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.388426097134 0.441005458295 88% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0833712751324 0.135418324435 62% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0749795357516 0.0829849096947 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.48969677968 0.58762219726 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.116314537347 0.147661913831 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.141707933953 0.193483328276 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0834211458823 0.0970749176394 86% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.357098817053 0.42659136922 84% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.112350348603 0.0774707102158 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.257723051609 0.312017818177 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0760768376227 0.0698173142475 109% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.33743842365 168% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 5.36822660099 37% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.