The preceding letter to the principal of a private school brings to issue his kid is facing from the school cafeteria. His kid and his friends dislike the low-fat, low-calorie healthy food served by the school cafeteria(Swift Nutrition) and he predicts that this move by the school will backfire causing students to bring unhealthy lunches to school, which shall result in terrible health consequences of the students of Kensington. Although the claim may have merit, it suffers from questionable premises and assumptions, lack of evidentiary support, and based on the information provided the argument stand invalid.
The primary issue with the thesis is the lack of substantiation. Is his kid and few of his friends representative of the entire student population of Kensington school? Perhaps, these children are unfamiliar with the taste of Swift foods because they have not being accustomed to this healthy foods. Or do these students have an unhealthy eating lifestyle in particular--relying on processed foods and junk for most of their nutrition? Do other kids studying at the school not liking the cafeteria also bring not-so-healthy foods? Maybe these students carry healthy wholesome food from home which matches with their taste instead of going to the cafeteria or binge-eating.
Furthermore, the claim of the author is undermined by several unreasonable assumptions he includes in his fallacious argument. Must all students not liking the cafeteria consume unhealthy food? Some children maybe wise enough to realize the importance of eating nutritious foods, others learn the importance of the same by their parents or the school teachers. Even in the scenario that the section of kids disliking the cafeteria foods bring their unhealthy lunches to school, it is not necessary that they shall suffer serious health consequences in future. What if this food has been their staple for their entire lifetime and they are completely accustomed to this eating habit? These questions need to be answered satisfactorily prior to making any bold prediction.
Although the claim has several shortcomings, it is not to say that the entire reasoning is without merit. The watchful parent does have a point in case the students of the school are facing a similar problem by the school cafeteria. And in turn if they respond by consuming junk, processed or packaged food, they shall face unwelcome health consequences in future. Thus to set the claim on sound footing, the writer must provide sufficient legitimate evidentiary support to back his claim and answer necessary questions to counter critiques.
In sum, the entire argument of the author stands invalid.
Essay evaluation 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: 20 15
No. of Words: 424 350
No. of Characters: 2201 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.538 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.191 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.792 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 168 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.2 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.483 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.35 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.307 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.504 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.057 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 550, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...hall suffer serious health consequences in future. What if this food has been their stapl...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 355, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...hall face unwelcome health consequences in future. Thus to set the claim on sound footing...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 366, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...nwelcome health consequences in future. Thus to set the claim on sound footing, the ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, if, may, so, thus, in particular
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2253.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 423.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32624113475 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53508145475 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93540112432 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494089834515 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 668.7 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.8121850495 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.65 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.15 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.55 5.70786347227 45% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
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: 0.220440117382 0.218282227539 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0650355629927 0.0743258471296 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0820574907343 0.0701772020484 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118740595215 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104157876899 0.0628817314937 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.