The following appeared in a memorandum from the mayor of Wistfold: “A recent study revealed that the number of children requiring medical attention for illnesses in our town is 40 percent higher than in the neighboring town of Champsfield. Last year the Champsfield school district implemented an educational program called “Kerzac Plus” that promotes healthier habits among children. Because prepackaged convenience foods have less nutritional value than fresh fruits and vegetables, Kerzac Plus guidance led to banning the sale of candy bars and soft drinks in Champsfield schools. Kerzac Plus also provides informational posters and live presentations for children that explain the importance of healthy foods and exercise, as well as the risks of making unhealthy lifestyle choices. The clearest explanation for the lower medical needs of Champsfield’s children compared with Wistfold’s is the introduction of the Kerzac Plus program to promote student health.”
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 author claims that the reason why children residing in Champsfield have lower medical needs in comparison to Wistfold is because of the implementation of the “Kerzac Plus” program, which promotes healthy eating habits among children and the executors of this program emphasize this need using informational posters and live presentations. However, there are major flaws in this line of reasoning.
To begin with, the authenticity and relevancy of this study is ambiguous. There is no solid proof as to how many children participated in said study. It is inexact to come to the conclusion that the number of children requiring medical attention in Wistfold is 40% higher than Champsfield solely on the basis of healthy habits. There could be a motley of reasons regarding poor health among children. Everyone is familiar with the ghastly effects the Covid pandemic had on people’s health, including children. Certain regions that had effectively immunized people suffered less. Families with comorbidities and inherited diseases, were affected deeply. Champsfield could be having better access to healthcare and could be more opulent than Wistfold hence the decrease in medical needs for children. A lot of complex factors play a role in an area’s health conditions. It is imprecise to base it on one sole reason.
In addition, the fact that the team implementing the “Kerzac Plus” Program banned the sale of candy bars and soft drinks to children is punishment through the eyes of children. Childhood is when they enjoy the food without worrying about any consequences. Anything must be executed in moderation. Banning and taking away things at once is bootless. If anything, this will instil a lack of trust and the children will feel forced to eat healthy. There is no guarantee that the children will follow the same restrictions at home. The efficacy of this campaign is in question. There is no emphasis on the importance of sports as well, which could also be lacking in Wistfold. A healthy lifestyle follows good diet and physical activity.
Lastly, the author concludes that the same reduction in medical cases of children will decimate in Wistfold if the Kerzac Plus program is accomplished. This statement is erroneous. informative posters and presentations is minute factor playing a role in children’s health but also limits their understanding. Improved medical care, hygiene, sanitation, regular vaccination drives, family education, sports and physical activity facilities, are some of the key factors contributing to a child’s health. The author must emphasize better medical care and facilities, organize programs to educate parents about the ill effects of unhealthy eating habits, organize enjoyable skits and programs that call the active attention of kids and improve sports facilities.
In summary, the given argument falls short in many aspects. In order to make the argument logically sound the author must have included the statistics of how many children participated in the study and reasons regarding the frequent medical cases in Wistfold.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 485 350
No. of Characters: 2533 1500
No. of Different Words: 254 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.693 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.223 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.759 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 206 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 158 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.963 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.616 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.444 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.241 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.241 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.032 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 182, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Informative
...omplished. This statement is erroneous. informative posters and presentations is minute fac...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 445, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...s and physical activity facilities, are some of the key factors contributing to a child’s h...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, lastly, regarding, so, then, well, as to, in addition, in summary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2610.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 485.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38144329897 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69283662038 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88753298552 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 204.123752495 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.540206185567 0.468620217663 115% => OK
syllable_count: 794.7 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 72.4347260699 57.8364921388 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.2142857143 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3214285714 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.96428571429 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.168496864103 0.218282227539 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0388572406406 0.0743258471296 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0584747628217 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0900228018018 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.041909880333 0.0628817314937 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 139.0 98.500998004 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.