The following appeared in the summary of a study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia.
"Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates, for the past several decades, food-processing companies have also been adding salicylates to foods as preservatives. This rise in the commercial use of salicylates has been found to correlate with a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in our twenty-year study. Recently, food-processing companies have found that salicylates can also be used as flavor additives for foods. With this new use for salicylates, we can expect a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The summary of the study on headaches suffered by the people of Mentia concludes that, by incorporating salicylates as food additives, number of people suffering from headaches can be reduced significantly. The author evidences this to a twenty-year survey, which ascribed the decline in headaches to increased use of salicylates as food preservatives. The writer’s contention might be true, but there are three pieces of evidences that must be provided to assess its persuasiveness.
First of all, the author assumes that the study that correlated usage of salicylates and plummeting of headaches is credible. What if the study was conducted by unscientific methods? For instance, food-processing companies, in an attempt to increase sales of their products might have conducted this survey. Such companies would have invested billions of dollars to set up their businesses, as a promotional tool, they might have initiated this study. Perhaps, the organization that executed the survey was forced to manipulate the results in favor of corporate giants. In addition, the survey might have been conducted by inexperienced people, thus weakening its authenticity. Therefore, there are numerous possibilities for tampered and fabricated survey results. Thus, it is necessary for the author to provide intricate details of the survey, like the qualification of the individuals who lead the study and statistical data of the people participated.
Secondly, the writers assumes that salicylates belonging to the same family of Aspirin, will cure headaches. Perhaps, in reality this may be the opposite. Despite, being a part of the same family, salicylates might aggravate the flow of blood to the head, thereby increasing the blood pressure. Such instances of increased blood-flow to brain, may cause severe headaches. In addition, the properties of salicylates may be different from Aspirin, yet biologists categorized it under the same family due to similar structural feature. Or, scientists in the field wrongly featured the substance under the same kin as Aspirin. Hence, salicylates might have different, perhaps, even contrasting properties as that of Aspirin. Therefore, the necessity of providing scientific and chemical study to support the claim is of top priority.
Further, the author assumes that rise in usage of salicylates was the prime reason for the decrease in headache among people. This seems to be based on unwarranted assumption, as there might have been a plethora of causes. For example, the rising concern of headaches, motivated the public to lesser their usage of mobile and laptops. Or even the recent emergence of yoga might have calmed the tensed minds, and eventually lessened headaches in people. Perhaps, an anodyne was synthesized, and that could have decreased headaches. Thus, there might have been various reasons for the decline. It is necessary for the writer to support with evidences proving his claim.
In conclusion, the author’s recommendation is based on faulty and questionable assumption. To make his/her proposal strong and credible, statistically backed evidences are needed.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 480 350
No. of Characters: 2572 1500
No. of Different Words: 236 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.681 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.358 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.986 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 198 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 158 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 119 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 91 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.143 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.884 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.266 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.462 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.063 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 354, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...e of salicylates as food preservatives. The writer’s contention might be true, but ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, as for, for example, for instance, in addition, 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: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2662.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 479.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.55741127349 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67825486995 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10752389754 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515657620042 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 844.2 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => 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: 36.724342008 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.0714285714 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1071428571 23.324526521 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.28571428571 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.67664670659 278% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.233515634791 0.218282227539 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0598348592386 0.0743258471296 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0699445689383 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123093271286 0.128457276422 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0850317806202 0.0628817314937 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 48.3550499002 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.67 12.5979740519 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.56 8.32208582834 115% => OK
difficult_words: 154.0 98.500998004 156% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.