The following appeared in a local newspaper.
"People should not be misled by the advertising competition between Coldex and Cold-Away, both popular over-the-counter cold medications that anyone can purchase without a doctor's prescription. Each brand is accusing the other of causing some well-known, unwanted side effect: Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure and Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. But the choice should be clear for most health-conscious people: Cold-Away has been on the market for much longer and is used by more hospitals than is Coldex. Clearly, Cold-Away is more effective."
This passage claims that in choosing from two cold medications Cold-Away is more effective than Coldax, because of Cold-Away has been on the market for much longer and is used by more hospitals than is Coldex. This reasoning has several flaws, and, therefore is not convincing. The logic of the argument is compromised because the author fails to mention some important aspects and suggests groundless cause-effect reasoning.
First of all, the author claims that Cold-Away has been on the market for much longer.
When making such a statement author assumes that the longer the drug is on the market the more effective it is. Indeed, the author's argument can seem logical at first glance.
However, the author fails to consider that new discoveries in medical science happen every day, and new more effective drugs are constantly being developed.
Therefore, the author's argument is doubtful because it contains a major flaw in reasoning.
If the author had provide more relevant information, his argument would have been more convincing.
Second, the argument points out that Cold-Away is used by more hospitals.
Again, this point may seem reasonable and justified to inattentive reader.
Nevertheless, a careful analysis reveal a major weakness in author's argument.
The author ignores to consider a possibility that it may be only two or ten hospitals use Cold-Away than Coldax. This problem could have been avoided if the author had mentioned the exact difference the exact difference in the use of the two drugs.
Finally, the argument suggests that efficiency of drugs could be assessed just only by two points. However, it may be the case that efficiency is measured by many other parameters. But the author totally ignores such a scenario in the passage. This problem could have been avoided if the author had provided comprehensive analysis off all fact and factors relevant to the matter.
In conclusion, the argument that Cold-Away is more effective than Coldax, contains several inconsistencies: unsupported assumption, omission of some important facts, incorrect analogy. The author reasoning, therefore is doubtful and hardly convincing.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 340 350
No. of Characters: 1766 1500
No. of Different Words: 154 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.294 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.194 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.725 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 141 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.633 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.85 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.357 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.753 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 12 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 104, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...Cold-Away is more effective than Coldax, because of Cold-Away has been on the mar...
^^
Line 1, column 371, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e author fails to mention some important aspects and suggests groundless cause-ef...
^^
Line 1, column 429, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ests groundless cause-effect reasoning. First of all, the author claims that Col...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “When” 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.
...s been on the market for much longer. When making such a statement author assumes ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 125, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...t the more effective it is. Indeed, the authors argument can seem logical at first glan...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 16, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...antly being developed. Therefore, the authors argument is doubtful because it contain...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 19, Rule ID: HAD_VBP[1]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'provided'.
Suggestion: provided
...flaw in reasoning. If the author had provide more relevant information, his argument...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 19, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'provided'.
Suggestion: provided
...flaw in reasoning. If the author had provide more relevant information, his argument...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 55.5748502994 52% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1854.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 340.0 441.139720559 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.45294117647 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29407602571 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82624103861 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 204.123752495 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.473529411765 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 566.1 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.389461219 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.7 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 23.324526521 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.15 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 12.0 5.15768463074 233% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0986048441754 0.218282227539 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0332590590639 0.0743258471296 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0475919510442 0.0701772020484 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0434782431678 0.128457276422 34% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0418350031264 0.0628817314937 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.03 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.01 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 98.500998004 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.