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.
The letter from the parent of a Kensington Academy's student tries to inform the principal about the low food quality of the academy's private vendor, Swift Nutrition. The conclusion of the letter is based on the premises that, Swift Nutrition serves low fat and low calorie meals and thus there will be serious health consequences for the students. However, in deeper analysis, it is evident that, certain relevant aspects have not been taken into consideration, leading to a number of mistaken assumptions and logical flaws.
First of all, the letter urges the principle to replace the present private vendor because of serving lower food quality. The letter claims that, Swift Nutrition serves low fat and low calorie meals which the students do not find enjoyable. However, the author of the letter did not provide any concrete evidence from where she got the qualitative or quantitative nutritious information regarding the meals. Did the parent conduct any investigation from any lab or the claim is based on just speculation? If the claim is based on just speculation that the students do not find the meal enjoyable and thus the meals should be of low nutritious value, it will reduce the strength of the letter's claim. The author should have clarified that issue.
Another problem in the claim is that, it assumes, the reason to handover of the cafeteria to a private vendor was to provide students healthier foods. But we can not just hold that assumption true without any concrete evidence. There can be situation like, the academy management's main focus was to provide students average quality food at a lower price. The school can be situated at an area, where most of the students are from lower or middle class family and thus higher cost for the meal will be burdensome for them. So, the academy's main focus was to provide healthier food irrespective of cost is not a strong point to make base of the argument. The author of the letter should have provided more information regarding management's intention to substantiate his viewpoints.
Moreover, the child of the letter writer may like some specific food like Chaomin, which may not be served by the vendor. In that case, the child would find other foods less enjoyable. So, we should know more information on that issue of available meals.
Lastly, to conclude, the argument lacks information and seems to provide irrational assumptions. The author of the letter should have provided more concrete evidence like the nutritious value of the meals and management intentions to substantiate the letter's viewpoints and to make the argument a cogent one.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 282, Rule ID: MAIN_FOCUS[1]
Message: Use simply 'focus'.
Suggestion: focus
...situation like, the academy managements main focus was to provide students average quality...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 540, Rule ID: MAIN_FOCUS[1]
Message: Use simply 'focus'.
Suggestion: focus
...e burdensome for them. So, the academys main focus was to provide healthier food irrespect...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, regarding, so, thus, as to, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2193.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 435.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04137931034 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6686615606 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.457471264368 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 674.1 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.2195754071 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.65 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.75 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.4 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.288577398234 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.086150988539 0.0743258471296 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104764579003 0.0701772020484 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158563474404 0.128457276422 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.11053236836 0.0628817314937 176% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => 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.