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.
The argument that dairy farmers of Relanna are inflating the price of cream to increase their profits may seem logical at first glance. But however, the author corroborates this claim with some evidences that seems insubstantiate while neglecting some salient alternative explanations that may undermine his claim. Until these alternative explanations are addressed, the argument remain invalid.
Firstly, the author states that the number of dairy farms in relanna has Increased by 25-percent. While this may seem logical at first, one will need to first understand the real values behind the percentage as an initially high value with twenty five percent increment may seem valid. But, on the other hand, if the initial value is a minute amount that then increased by twenty-five percent, then the increment is found incongruous.
Secondly, the author assumes all farmers can afford the new innovation, thereby making all farmers to retrieve more milk in less time with minimal human intervention. Suppose, perhaps, if almost all the dairy farmers in relanna are destitute and are unable to afford the new innovation. Also, assuming most of these farmers are uneducated to know how to operate these new innovations. Thus, one could see that the claim that all farmers are capable of collecting more milk in less time with minimal human intervention is flawed.
Thirdly, the author neglects the economic status of the country by asserting that dairy products made from at the local market cost twice as they did last two years. The author simply implies that the present currency exchange rate was the same as that of two years ago. This might be the other way round as farmers might even be running at lost because they might not be gaining much from the new price due to the current economy situation. Also, the author neglects the cost of other ingredients used in making these dairies products. These ‘other ingredients’ might be the main cause of the increase of diary food price rather than the milk themselves.
However, the author needs to crossscheck the real figures behind the twenty-five percent increment in the number of dairy farms in relanna. If these values are prodigious enough, then the assertation might be right, On the hand, if these values are scant, then, the claim is flawed. Also, the author needs to corroborate this argument with the evidence that most dairy farmers in Relanna are capable of acquiring the new innovation mentioned in the claim. Finally, the author needs to compare the country’s economic status in last two years with the present years. Comparing these statuses might indicate why most dairies food are two times costlier than they were last year.
In conclusion, the argument that Relanna’s dairy farmers are inflating the price of cream to increase their profits may seem reasonable but the author neglects some alternative explanations to bolster is claim. Unless these alternatives explanations are taken into consideration, the argument totally falls apart. Thus, the author might be making a major mistake by assuming farmers are making more profits.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 504 350
No. of Characters: 2545 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.738 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.05 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.517 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 176 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.913 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.128 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.739 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.567 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.063 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 137, Rule ID: BUT_NEVERTHELESS[1]
Message: Use simply 'But'.
Suggestion: But
...ofits may seem logical at first glance. But however, the author corroborates this claim wit...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 57, Rule ID: NEW_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'innovation'.
Suggestion: innovation
...thor assumes all farmers can afford the new innovation, thereby making all farmers to retrieve...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 272, Rule ID: NEW_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'innovation'.
Suggestion: innovation
... destitute and are unable to afford the new innovation. Also, assuming most of these farmers a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 418, Rule ID: NEW_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'innovation'.
Suggestion: innovation
...in Relanna are capable of acquiring the new innovation mentioned in the claim. Finally, the au...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 615, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'dairies'' or 'dairy's'?
Suggestion: dairies'; dairy's
... these statuses might indicate why most dairies food are two times costlier than they w...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, while, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2624.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 504.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20634920635 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62844633933 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444444444444 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 806.4 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.0779310627 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.086956522 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9130434783 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.21739130435 5.70786347227 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.13644091334 0.218282227539 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0531011239284 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0619677678288 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0775694613888 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0305684566587 0.0628817314937 49% => 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: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => 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.