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.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.
In the given letter, the parent asserts the principal of the school to replace the vendor of the cafetaria, Swift Nutrition. The parent has arrived on this assertion based on the premise that Swift Nutrition would have serious health consequences for the students. However, the assertion drawn might hold water, it rests on several unfounded assumptions that, if not substantiated, would dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument. Before we could evaluate the given assertion, the following questions must be addressed.
First of all, the parent states that his/her son and several of his friends complained about the lunch options. It is unclear, however the scope and reliability of the observation. How many such students complained about the meals served by Swift Nutrition? What percentage of all students have complained? It is possible that these particular students might have an apetite for high-fat meals. Also, it is highly likely very few students have actually complained while the rest are pretty satistified by the meals served by the Swift Nutrition. It would be unfair to take such a decision based on such limited information. Perhaps, these students may not have been the representative of all the student at the school. If either of the above scenarios are true, then the conclclusion drawn in the origianl argument is significantly waekened.
Furthermore, the parent assumes if such meals would enforce recalcitrence in the students to boycott meals from cafeteria, they would opt to bring rather unhealhty meals from elsewhere. However, this might not be the case. It is highly unlikely that kids which opt to bring their own food would espouse unhealthy food. For instance, a kid bring meals from home will bring a highly salubrious meal, perhaps better than the one served in the cafetria. The meals prepared at home tend to be more healthy due to natural ingredients and austere cooking techniques. If the above is true, then the argument does not hold water.
Finally, what exactly does the parent mean by 'not enjoyable'? How can the meals be 'not enjoyable'? The parent fails to provide any information regarding the supposedly 'enjoyable' food. It is highly likely that food children enjoy the most, is inimical to their health. Children have inherent proclivity to fast and junk foods such as pizzas and hotdogs, which when consumed frequently, adversely affects the health. If the above stands warranted, then the argument is weakened.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. The author fails to provide concrete data to bolster his claim. Also, the author uses highly vague and ambiguous terminologies. If the author is able to address the questions raised above and perhaps conduct a scientific study to find how many students have the same opinion, then it will be possible to evaluate the viability of the 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: 00 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 477 350
No. of Characters: 2407 1500
No. of Different Words: 228 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.673 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.046 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.69 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 172 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 133 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 95 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.448 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.069 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.586 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.262 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.456 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.084 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 406, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...any students have the same opinion, then it will be possible to evaluate the viab...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, so, then, while, for instance, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2482.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 476.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21428571429 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67091256922 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80724470564 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495798319328 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 750.6 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.3990658813 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.5862068966 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4137931034 23.324526521 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.86206896552 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.164982414184 0.218282227539 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.042156333314 0.0743258471296 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0545671993134 0.0701772020484 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0855917742511 0.128457276422 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0497471785833 0.0628817314937 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.64 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.