The following is a letter from the parent of a private school student to the principal of that school:
Last year, Kensington Academy turned over management of its cafeteria to a private vendor, Swift Nutrition. This company serves low-fat, low-calorie meals that students do not find enjoyable – my son and several of his friends came home yesterday complaining about the lunch options. While the intent of hiring Swift may have been to cause students to eat healthier foods, the plan is just going to cause students to bring their own, less healthy lunches instead of eating cafeteria food. If Swift is not replaced with another vendor, there will be serious health consequences for Kensington students.
The argument and conclusion made by the parent here are strikingly fascinating. The speaker states that the change of cafeteria vendors to private hygienic, healthy food preparation ones which some students are not like, turn out to spoil the health of students themselves. Ironically, the parent here condemns the principal that the intent behind hiring the Swift Nutrition is apparently lost, and asks to make that clear. The amusement behind the argument made is that the parent himself asks the principal to compromise the quality of intake of his one child.
The argument here is abstruse, if any child doesn't like any healthy and hygienic food, any parent should convenience that particular child to pursue it in order to achieve their fitness and stability (physical and mental). For example, for these kinds of relatable arguments, personal experience will be very helpful. Many of the children studying in school will take time to know or gain some cognizance in terms of what to eat and what not, then any parent either forces them to eat healthy food and time being he knows the advantages or some wise ones indemnifies with their kids in a thoughtful way which nurtures their present and future. Otherwise leaving them to eat the stink can be adulterated and problematic down the lane.
On the other hand, many can misunderstand the above-stated example as impeding consent. That was not at all intending that, ironically, so was the principal's intention. Here, if the students get addicted to any junk food instead of the healthy is served by the cafeteria, they eventually will incline to buy some other junk no matter how many times the cafeteria menu or vendors change. Thus explaining to them or making them understand the value of the food available by allowing them for controlled junk food occasionally will do the deed. Abstaining will be a mistake but providing children the data of the consequences and letting them realize what they have signed up for is a wise step to be followed by any parent or guardian.
In sum, I wittily disprove the conclusion drawn from the particular argument mentioned by the same self. If possible inspire or turn the mindset of children towards generosity and respect for survival. Which in turn aids them in succeeding or reaching their chosen livelihood. And I solemnly request the principal of the Kensington academy to stand on his word and I uphold with principal's intractability on this corresponding issue. As many said strong person create comfortable times that produces weak personalities. So, acknowledge the thin line between love and comfy before treating their respective children.
Comments
e-rater score report
out of topic
============
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 438 350
No. of Characters: 2175 1500
No. of Different Words: 242 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.575 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.966 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.733 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 152 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.053 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.424 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.579 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.274 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.274 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 45, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...argument here is abstruse, if any child doesnt like any healthy and hygienic food, any...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 582, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a thoughtful way" with adverb for "thoughtful"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...e wise ones indemnifies with their kids in a thoughtful way which nurtures their present and future...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 643, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Otherwise,
...hich nurtures their present and future. Otherwise leaving them to eat the stink can be ad...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 733, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lterated and problematic down the lane. On the other hand, many can misunderstan...
^^^
Line 3, column 148, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'principals'' or 'principal's'?
Suggestion: principals'; principal's
... intending that, ironically, so was the principals intention. Here, if the students get ad...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 435, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” 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.
...actability on this corresponding issue. As many said strong person create comforta...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, if, so, then, thus, for example, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 11.1786427146 197% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2214.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 437.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06636155606 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57214883401 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78019700078 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 204.123752495 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.549199084668 0.468620217663 117% => OK
syllable_count: 693.9 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.8582088684 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.526315789 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.52631578947 5.70786347227 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.130103259105 0.218282227539 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0369294192666 0.0743258471296 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0407912481295 0.0701772020484 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.081659871512 0.128457276422 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0462036763096 0.0628817314937 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.