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 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 20 year study. Recently food processing companies have fund that salicylates can also be used as flavour 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."
The author has presented an argument in which he asserts that the increasing consumption of salicylates by the citizens of Mentia due to the increasing use of them by food-processing companies as preservatives and flavouring substances, will lead to a decrease in the number of headaches suffered. Though the author has presented a seemingly plausible argument, a close scrutiny of the evidence reveals it to be weak and the reasoning fallacious.
The initial claim of the author is that as salicylates are in the same chemical family as aspirin, they will possess the same or atleast similar chemical and medicinal properties as aspirin. This is a weak assumption, because basic chemistry can tell us that simply because two chemicals belong to the same chemical family and may have similar elements and composition of these elements, or even the same chemical formula, in no way does that imply that the chemical effects of the two would be the same. This is because structure plays an important role in determining the medicinal properties and hence value of a chemical or drug, especially in regard to the location, organs and hormones with which it is supposed to react and produce the desired effect. For example, cis-platin is an important drug in the treatment and even cure of some types of cancers, but trans-platin, which only differs from this medicine in terms of structure and thereby lies in the same chemical family, is actually poisonous and can produce toxic effects in certain organs of the body. Thus the author's assumption that chemicals must have similar properties because they belong to the same chemical family is dubious. This assumption also underlies the author's claim that the increase in consumption of salicylates through their increased used by food-processing companies will somehow lead to a decline in headaches, because of supposed similarities in properties with aspirin, which treats headaches. As previously pointed out, this assumption that salicylates are beneficial simply because of certain similarities to aspirin is specious and dubious.
The author also assumes that the participants of the 20 year study did not face any ill effects, especially headaches, because of their reporting as such. However, it is possible they faced headaches but took medicines, or reduced their intake of foods manufactured with salicylates as preservatives on noticing that they suffered headaches on such consumption. We would need specific information on the daily consumption, variety and amount consumed to in order to justify the author's assumption that the sole reason for decline in number of headaches reported is because of more salicylates in the foods being consumed. It is possible that majority of the people involved started eating healthy foods which counteracted the cause of their headaches and had nothing to do with salicylates. The author further assumes that all the people involved in the study were similar physiologically and all faced the same effects of consuming salicylates. It is possible that more number of younger people were included as subjects, who were more fit and exercised regularly managed to preclude severe headaches, while older people had to suffer, thereby skewing the results and showing a general decline in headaches reported. It is also necessary to provide evidence to justify the author's assumption that the study being conducted is reliable, accurate and also considers such physiological changes as metabolic rate changes, energy requirements, amount of strenuous or demanding work whether physical or mental, etc.
Furthermore, simply because subjects today report lower number of headaches than before consumption of salicylates, the author assumes that this trend will continue if not intensify in magnitude in the future. However, the author's providential outlook fails to consider that people undergo physiological, mental changes which can impact the results of the study and introduce biases which can skew results if unacknowledged. Maybe the continued used of salicylates is actually detrimental and has potential side effects which are more serious than headaches, such as weakening immunity, blood poisoning, etc. which can manifest themselves after the consumption exceeds a certain threshold. Hence, although the subjects may enjoy lower number of headaches today, if the rate of consumption remains steady or increases, they could experience a severe decline in general health later. The author has assumed that there will be no such side effects, but evidence is needed to justify it and also delineate portentious effects of further possible debilitating diseases due to increased salicylate consumption. Even aspirin on excessive consumption can cause blood thinning, problems in clotting, etc. which the author should acknowledge and consider before recommending increase in salicylate usage for battling headaches.
Thus, we observe that though the author has given a plausible argument, his assertions rest on weak assumptions which undermine the validity of the argument and line of reasoning instead of buttressing it. The author should provide additional evidence to justify his assumptions and thereby make a stronger argument.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 24 15
No. of Words: 810 350
No. of Characters: 4358 1500
No. of Different Words: 325 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.335 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.38 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.904 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 356 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 297 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 206 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 133 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 33.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.909 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.339 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.535 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.129 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 365, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: scrutiny
...ented a seemingly plausible argument, a close scrutiny of the evidence reveals it to be weak a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1070, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... effects in certain organs of the body. Thus the authors assumption that chemicals m...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1079, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...in certain organs of the body. Thus the authors assumption that chemicals must have sim...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 480, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...unt consumed to in order to justify the authors assumption that the sole reason for dec...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1276, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...sary to provide evidence to justify the authors assumption that the study being conduct...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, may, so, thus, while, for example, in general, such as, in regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 34.0 11.1786427146 304% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 31.0 13.6137724551 228% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 51.0 28.8173652695 177% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 96.0 55.5748502994 173% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4438.0 2260.96107784 196% => OK
No of words: 810.0 441.139720559 184% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.47901234568 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.33483823012 4.56307096286 117% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98076340303 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 344.0 204.123752495 169% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.424691358025 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1413.9 705.55239521 200% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 67.4102954228 57.8364921388 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 170.692307692 119.503703932 143% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.1538461538 23.324526521 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.92307692308 5.70786347227 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => 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: 0.228332686045 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0674125187799 0.0743258471296 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0585966124769 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112664643305 0.128457276422 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0662572763721 0.0628817314937 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.0 14.3799401198 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.55 48.3550499002 65% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 12.197005988 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.1 12.5979740519 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 205.0 98.500998004 208% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.