The parent claims that the students will face serious health issues if Kensington Academy does not replace Swift Nutrition with another vendor. However, this claim is based on a fallacious causality which states that the nutritious food is not popular among students and they will end up bringing their own food, which is less healthy. Stated in this way, the argument reveals poor reasoning and leap of faith. Also, the parent fails to mention various key factors based on which it could be evaluated.
Firstly, the parent claims that Swift Nutrition provides not-so-enjoyable food options and it must be replaced. This claim is too weak to be convincing. If Swift Nutrition, which might be well known for its healthy food options, with some other vendor, which will possibly offer the students regular fast food options, the children will consequently fall ill. What is important to know is whether Swift nutrition is providing the children with right kind of healthy options or it is providing food options, which does not have any significance to children's health. If Swift Nutrition is already providing superior quality of low-calorie food, there is no reason to replace it with some other vendor. In fact, the children must be encourage to avail such facilities by making them aware of the importance of healthy food.
Secondly, the parent claims that replacing Swift Nutrition with some other vendor is the only way to stop children from bringing their own less healthy lunches. This claim is again based on an assumption, which lacks evidence. What needs to be answered is whether the other vendors, which possibly could replace Swift Nutrition, can really provide children with enjoyable yet healthy food options. If not, then there is no reason why Swift Nutrition should be replaced.
Thirdly, the parent claims that the children complains of the food provided by Swift Nutrition. However, the parent does not elaborate the specifics of the complain. What is necessary to know is whether it is only the lack of enjoyable food options or something else. Exposure to multifarious junk foods generally make children believe that they are the only good food options. If there is nothing wrong other than lack of options, replacing Swift Nutrition would be rather unnecessary.
In conclusion, the argument lacks substantive evidences to prove its claim. Without the answers to the above-mentioned questions and evidences, the argument remains unsubstantiated and remains open to debate.
Essay evaluation 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: 20 15
No. of Words: 402 350
No. of Characters: 2046 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.478 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.09 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.587 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 121 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.1 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.296 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.537 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 741, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'availing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'encourage' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: availing
...In fact, the children must be encourage to avail such facilities by making them aware of...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 153, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ent does not elaborate the specifics of the complain. What is necessary to know is whether i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, firstly, however, if, really, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, well, in conclusion, in fact, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2104.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 402.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23383084577 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47771567384 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66862443913 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.477611940299 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 608.4 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.3316937996 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.19047619 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1428571429 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.57142857143 5.70786347227 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.110565218332 0.218282227539 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0419187350678 0.0743258471296 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0377953949049 0.0701772020484 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0673676178548 0.128457276422 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0301312401908 0.0628817314937 48% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.