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.sources such as time and system capacity, as well as protect the company from lawsuits.
The letter posits that the school should change the current cafeteria vendor. The conclusion is based on the premise that there would be "serious health consequences" if the school does not replace the cafeteria vendor. The argument for the support of conclusion lacks evidence and hence the letter is unconvincing as it stands.
Firstly, it is readily assumed that the all the students do not find the food enjoyable. It can be the case that only a few do not like it and they happen to be the parents' son and his friends. To resolve this, we need to find out the total number of students in the school and also the number of them who do not enjoy the cafeterias' food.
Secondly, the argument could have been more clearer if we know about the lunch options now and before. It can be the case that the new vendor is providing more lunch options than before but only a few do not like it, while the other are finding it better. Therefore, the parent should discuss about the options that the school has now as compared to before. Additionally, it does not make sense to change the vendor because of less food options. The school should first survey the food options that students want and then seeing if Swift nutrition can accomodate the proposed options.
Lastly, the parent fails to mention on of the key factors, that is if all the parents are actually willing to give their children less healthy lunch then the nutritious one provided in the school? Most logical answer would be - NO. No parent would want their kid to eat junk food, therefore the majority would force the children to eat at the school cafeteria. Hence, to make the argument more persuasive, we need find the number of parents that would let their kid have lesser healthier lunch.
To sum up, without the answer to questions like - "How many students do not like the lunch? Can it be the case that only a few do not like lunch and they happen to be children of the parent writing the letter? Is changing the vendor the only option or can he change the menu? Are parents willing to let their kids have less healthier meals ? ", the conclusion of the letter is unsubstantiated and therefore it is not recommended to replace Swift Nutrition.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The school should first survey the food options that students want and then seeing if Swift nutrition can accomodate the proposed options.
Error: accomodate Suggestion: accommodate
----------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not exactly
----------------
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-letter-p…
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 395 350
No. of Characters: 1768 1500
No. of Different Words: 166 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.458 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.476 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.288 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 121 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 76 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 43 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 25 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.789 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.606 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.684 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.56 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.123 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 231, 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.
... does not replace the cafeteria vendor. The argument for the support of conclusion ...
^^^
Line 3, column 166, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'parents'' or 'parent's'?
Suggestion: parents'; parent's
...o not like it and they happen to be the parents son and his friends. To resolve this, w...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 324, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'cafeterias'' or 'cafeteria's'?
Suggestion: cafeterias'; cafeteria's
...the number of them who do not enjoy the cafeterias food. Secondly, the argument could h...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 40, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'clearer' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: clearer
... Secondly, the argument could have been more clearer if we know about the lunch options now ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 150, Rule ID: LESS_MORE_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'than'?
Suggestion: than
... give their children less healthy lunch then the nutritious one provided in the scho...
^^^^
Line 9, column 325, Rule ID: LESS_COMPARATIVE[1]
Message: Non-standard use of the comparative or superlative. Did you mean 'less healthy'?
Suggestion: less healthy
... parents willing to let their kids have less healthier meals ? ', the conclusion of the l...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 428, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'recommended replacing'.
Suggestion: recommended replacing
...unsubstantiated and therefore it is not recommended to replace Swift Nutrition.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, while, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => 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: 1843.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 396.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.65404040404 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46091344257 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48063333629 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.439393939394 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 550.8 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.152593268 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.15 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.55 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.159969648714 0.218282227539 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.056109597057 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0431447630575 0.0701772020484 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0997038710048 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0234104712609 0.0628817314937 37% => 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: 10.4 14.3799401198 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 48.3550499002 143% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 12.197005988 68% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.69 12.5979740519 77% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.09 8.32208582834 85% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 98.500998004 64% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.