The author argues that having high number of family means keeps teens from engaging in bad practices. The author's cites data from a survey of more than 5000 adolescents. The author's conclusion is not valid and his argument is not cogent. This argument is rife with holes. The author's view is not substantiated enough to reach this conclusion. The author clearly confused correlation with causation as the proof provided by the author is not strong enough to reach this conclusion. Having high meals with family is merely negatively correlated to the use of drugs and positively correlated to grades and self esteem.
First of all, the survey is not large enough to reach this conclusion. It might be possible that the survey missed out on those adolescents that had family meals and indulged in bad practices as well. It would be beneficial to the argument if the author could survey a larger dataset in which these cases are also included.
Secondly, it might be possible that instead of family meals leading to lower rates of depression, the converse is true i.e. those with lower rates of depression actually ate more meals with their family. And this is true for all the traists mentioned by the author. It is common for families to abandon their children once they are found using illegal drugs. If the author can provide data against this view, only then can we conclude that having meals with family prevents teens from engaging in bad behaviour.
Also, the author cites that about 30 percent of the teens ate at least seven meals with their family in a week. On the basis of this the author concludes that having a high number of family meals keeps teens from engaging in bad behaviors. But the author doesn't provide data on whether those who had more meals with the family were in better position than those who had less meals.
It could even be possible that there were a large number of teens who had more meals than the 30 percent touted by the author but they were still suffering from low self-esteem and higher rates of depression.
The author doesn't take into account various other factors as well for better grades. It is highly probable that those with better self esteem actually had lower rates of depression and performmed better in the school and got better grades. These teens may be the ones who indulged less in drugs, tobacco and alcohol. Maybe low self-esteem is the root cause of all these problems and those with better self-esteem ate more meals with their families.
It can be seen that the author's argument is not well formed and is not cogent. There are a number of other possibities. So we cannot conclude that eating meals with family prevents teens from engaging in bad practices.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 474 350
No. of Characters: 2212 1500
No. of Different Words: 184 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.666 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.667 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.269 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 83 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 65 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.96 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.634 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.52 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.342 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.342 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.111 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 115, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'cite'.
Suggestion: cite
... engaging in bad practices. The authors cites data from a survey of more than 5000 ad...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 171, 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.
...a survey of more than 5000 adolescents. The authors conclusion is not valid and his...
^^^
Line 1, column 175, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rvey of more than 5000 adolescents. The authors conclusion is not valid and his argumen...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 255, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...gaging in bad behaviors. But the author doesnt provide data on whether those who had m...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 370, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun meals is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...e in better position than those who had less meals. It could even be possible that ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 43, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... could even be possible that there were a large number of teens who had more meals than the 30 pe...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 12, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...higher rates of depression. The author doesnt take into account various other factors...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 25, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...heir families. It can be seen that the authors argument is not well formed and is not ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, well, at least, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 28.8173652695 153% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2251.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 472.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.76906779661 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6610686524 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.33433334048 2.78398813304 84% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.400423728814 0.468620217663 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 682.2 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.1923794336 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.04 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.88 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.277347937018 0.218282227539 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0854918246525 0.0743258471296 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0716616808911 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159738774022 0.128457276422 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0587918080162 0.0628817314937 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 14.3799401198 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 48.3550499002 145% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 12.197005988 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.39 12.5979740519 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.27 8.32208582834 87% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 7.0 11.9071856287 59% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.