The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a Relannian newspaper. Industry analysts report that the number of dairy farms in Relanna has increased by 25 percent over the last decade. Also, recent innovations in milking technology make it possible for farmers to significantly increase the efficiency of the milking process, allowing them to collect more milk in less time with minimal human intervention. In fact, data from the Relannian Department of Agriculture indicate that labor costs at the majority of Relannian dairy farms are actually lower now than they were ten years ago. Despite increased efficiency and lower labor costs, a carton of cream — a dairy product made from milk — at the local food market costs twice as much as it did two years ago. The only explanation for this dramatic price increase is that farmers are inflating the price of cream to increase their profits.
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.
Although, a surface analysis of the argument may seem cogent and thus justify the conc lusion made in the Relannian newspaper, a deep look at the argument suggests otherwise especially as it lacks evidence to substantiate certain assumptions in which the arguments are premised. The author of the letter cites a report and data from the Relannian Department of Agriculture as authority in arriving at this conclusion but the arguments lack evidence to support its claim and currently the recommendation amounts to a particularly poor one unless certain questions are adequately answered.
First, the author cites an industry analysts report that suggests that dairy farms in Relanna has increased by 25 percent over the last decade, providing little information on the methodology used to carry out this analysis. Who where the correspondences in the research, what were the sources of the data used, and how were they analyzed. If the correspondences were employees or associates of Relanna then it is possible that information provided may have been compromised as those correspondents would provide answers that their superiors would likely agreed on. In this case, it will significantly impact on the result of the analysis.
In addition, if we assume that the report analysis was done right, and the data source was collated with minimal bias. The author has assumed that events in the last decade reflects the events in the last two years. There is possibility that if the analysis was done for just two years ago, there will be a significant change in the reported increase. In fact, it might be that there has been a significant decrease in the number of diary farms in the last two years. In which case making a recommendation base on the report may amount to particularly poor advice.
Furthermore, an increase in the number of dairy farms do not equate to an increase in the production of milk. The author fails to substantiate with evidence the relationship between number of dairy farms with milk production. It is possible that many of the dairy animals are being affected by plagues that has impacted production. Since price of good is linked to the interactions of demand and supply it will be a flawed argument to arrive at a hasty conclusion that farmers are inflating price of cream.
Also, the author mentions data from the Relannian Department of Agriculture that indicates that labor costs at the majority of Relannian dairy farms are actually lower now than they were ten years ago. First, if we assume that the data is correct, the data do not account for the labor cost of minority of Relannian dairy farms which may actually outweigh the cost for the others. Failure to substantiate on the overall cost of labor renders the recommendation prone to error.
In summary, for the recommendation to be robust, it is imperative that the author clarify on the methodology used in the report and also account for the previous two years. Also, it should communicate in clear terms whether the questionnaire in the report was between alternatives and if the data source accommodates the minimal bias acceptable. Furthermore how the number of dairy farm and improved processing in milk technology is related to the amount of milk produced and if the animals have not been affected by diseases recently. Failure to account for the above renders the argument invalid and the recommendation clearly of amount to hasty conclusion.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 571 350
No. of Characters: 2826 1500
No. of Different Words: 239 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.888 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.949 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.867 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 197 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 149 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.955 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.296 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.309 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.1 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 346, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
...commodates the minimal bias acceptable. Furthermore how the number of dairy farm and improv...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, furthermore, if, look, may, so, then, thus, in addition, in fact, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 55.5748502994 148% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2876.0 2260.96107784 127% => OK
No of words: 571.0 441.139720559 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03677758319 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88831323574 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91225687216 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.432574430823 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 927.0 705.55239521 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.2423886315 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.727272727 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9545454545 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.72727272727 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.237753564848 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0662919801382 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0643294011041 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112937307679 0.128457276422 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.037814872285 0.0628817314937 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 98.500998004 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.