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 letter states a complaint about the cafeteria vendor, Swift Nutrition. This company serves low-fat and low-calorie meals that students do not enjoy. The vendor does not provide good options for the students of the academy. The intention of hiring this company was to provide students with healthier foods. But, the plan is going to cause students to bring lunches on their own instead of eating the cafeteria food. If the company is not replaced with another vendor, there will be consequences which may be harmful for Kensington students.
The letter claims about the vendor that serves low-fat and low-calorie food that is not enjoyable for some students. The letter is does not offer any information regarding other students of the academy. Other students of the academy may find the food healthy and their parents might not have any objection regarding this Swiss Nutrition company. The claim makes a hasty generalization for all and asks to change the company.
Secondly, the intention of Swift is assumed to provide healthier food and it is presented in the letter that it would change eating habits of students. And, they will bring their own lunches instead of having the cafeteria food. The letter never gives any information that how many students are going to bring their lunches and are not enjoying the Swift company meals. The stimuli does not provide any cogent reason for changing the company.
Thirdly, if Swift is not replaced with another food company as mentioned, it claims to have serious health consequences. Swift provides healthy food which can not harm them. The grounds are not stated that how serious consequences are going to be affected. This is totally vague to apprise any serious health consequence due to adversity of Swift company.
To recapitulate, the letter urging for a company change does not provide any concrete grounds upon which decisions can be conferred. It needs to answer many questions challenged them. As, for a few number of students who do not find the food healthy;the company cannot be changed. It may be possible that other students of the school may like the Swift Nutrition company food. The reasons need to be more persuasive to bring about any change like it may be quality or cleanliness of Swift Nutrition company. Since, every serious factor is fine with Swift Nutrition company, the vendor may not be replaced.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 383, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'do'.
Suggestion: do
...ng the Swift company meals. The stimuli does not provide any cogent reason for chang...
^^^^
Line 7, column 194, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...h can not harm them. The grounds are not stated that how serious consequences are...
^^
Line 9, column 195, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun number seems to be countable; consider using: 'few numbers'.
Suggestion: few numbers
...ny questions challenged them. As, for a few number of students who do not find the food he...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'third', 'thirdly', 'as to']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.247113163972 0.25644967241 96% => OK
Verbs: 0.196304849885 0.15541462614 126% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0762124711316 0.0836205057962 91% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0531177829099 0.0520304965353 102% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0300230946882 0.0272364105082 110% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0854503464203 0.125424944231 68% => OK
Participles: 0.0484988452656 0.0416121511921 117% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.53879244378 2.79052419416 91% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0323325635104 0.026700313972 121% => OK
Particles: 0.00230946882217 0.001811407834 127% => OK
Determiners: 0.120092378753 0.113004496875 106% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0300230946882 0.0255425247493 118% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0207852193995 0.0127820249294 163% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2386.0 2731.13054187 87% => OK
No of words: 395.0 446.07635468 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.04050632911 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45809453852 4.57801047555 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.379746835443 0.378187486979 100% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.283544303797 0.287650121315 99% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.177215189873 0.208842608468 85% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.111392405063 0.135150697306 82% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53879244378 2.79052419416 91% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 207.018472906 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.407594936709 0.469332199767 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 42.7502190129 52.1807786196 82% => OK
How many sentences: 24.0 20.039408867 120% => OK
Sentence length: 16.4583333333 23.2022227129 71% => OK
Sentence length SD: 27.8080910987 57.7814097925 48% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.4166666667 141.986410481 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4583333333 23.2022227129 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.416666666667 0.724660767414 57% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 44.8127637131 51.9672348444 86% => OK
Elegance: 1.36363636364 1.8405768891 74% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.43466865571 0.441005458295 99% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.131318901444 0.135418324435 97% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.100630843715 0.0829849096947 121% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.54288501888 0.58762219726 92% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.120906276914 0.147661913831 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.183868585068 0.193483328276 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0752582480442 0.0970749176394 78% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.470910641725 0.42659136922 110% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.127170629842 0.0774707102158 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.317966408681 0.312017818177 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0796930909689 0.0698173142475 114% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 7.0 2.82389162562 248% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.