The author concludes here that with the use of salicylates the number of people suffering from headaches would be decreased. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it can be evaluated. To support the argument the author needs to clarify the following three factors. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author’s recommendation. Hence the argument can be considered unsubstantiated.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that the number of participants of their study represents the total population of Mentia. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. For example, the population of Mentia may be one million but only one hundred people participated in their survey. Hence the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly stated the percentage of the people rather than the number of people.
The author claims that the average citizen experiencing headaches consume the foods that are rich in salicylates. This again is a weak or unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any clear correlation between consumption of food and the food being enriched with salicylates. For instance, the people who didn’t reported any headaches might take food with salicylates but they might be unable to report their problems. So, it might be the case that all citizens containing headaches didn’t necessarily report. If the argument could have provided any evidence against it then it would have been convincing to the reader.
Additionally, there is no proof provided that the new found information of the usage of salicylates as a preservative had been implied. From this information, the author’s claims can’t be established. Careful scrutiny of the evidence raises several skeptical questions. Without convincing answers to these questions the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the author’s claim is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by a detailed analysis. Finally, to better evaluate the argument it would be necessary to know more information. Without explaining the aforementioned factors, the argument loses it’s credibility.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 374 350
No. of Characters: 1959 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.398 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.238 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.885 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.201 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.455 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.302 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.302 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.075 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 445, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...upport for the author’s recommendation. Hence the argument can be considered unsubsta...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 309, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ed people participated in their survey. Hence the argument would have been much more ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 513, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...ng headaches didn’t necessarily report. If the argument could have provided any ev...
^^
Line 5, column 322, Rule ID: IT_IS[22]
Message: Did you mean 'its' (possessive pronoun) instead of 'it's' (short form of 'it is')?
Suggestion: its
...rementioned factors, the argument loses it’s credibility.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, so, then, for example, for instance, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2018.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 372.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.4247311828 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39173103935 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00694363504 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.524193548387 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 629.1 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.1602930291 57.8364921388 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 91.7272727273 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9090909091 23.324526521 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.120311779063 0.218282227539 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0350847524583 0.0743258471296 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0507447214853 0.0701772020484 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0618743055281 0.128457276422 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0495408642493 0.0628817314937 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.86 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.