The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.
"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. This shows that eating a substantial amount of fish can clearly prevent colds. Furthermore, since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, attendance levels will improve. Therefore, we recommend the daily use of a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation 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 recommendation.
The author contends in order to reduce absenteeism at work places and schools, the Public Health council has come up with a promising way to overcome this. The method that is suggested by the council is the one adopted by the nearby city which they assume is the solution to mitigate their problem. This assertion is based on fallacious data without any perspective insight. The premises that this argument is based on is incomplete and spurious. There are myriads of faults in this piece of information where this argument can be weakened and unlikely to present the expected outcome. The reasons for my stand are explicated and elucidated throughout the passage.
Firstly, the treatment that is being called as innovative to mitigate the existing issue of West Meria requires legit source of information which could be any doctors recommendation or someone from medical who can delineate the link between eating fish and cold. Health council is a community of members who are just concerned about people and figuring out ways for the well being of the society. Any medical data which reflects the connection between the problem and the solution could strengthen the author's point. However,its absence merely weakens his argument.
Secondly, Objection can be made on the second statement as well. People visiting doctors once or twice a year does not indicate that they suffer with cold only these two times. Its a common symptom which generally people take care themselves without involving the doctor. This is not a valid point to infer that people suffer from cold with reduced frequency just because they visit the doctor only twice. There is a plausible possibility that these times when they visit the doctor are the cases of severe cold which is a symptom of some dreadful disease. Hence, arriving at a conclusion on the grounds of this data is inane.
Thirdly, to conclude that the attendance will increase with the consumption of fish as it is the most common excuse depicts that the author is too naive. If the main intention is to evade the work or school, people can find thousands of more excuses. Overcoming cold does not guarantee the improved attendance. Therefore, any recommendation of fish oil is not persuasive enough to either prevent cold or decrease absenteeism.
Thus, the summary of the writing is that the conclusions made by the author do not have rigid and a firm ground, which easily make it vulnerable to attack. This could be prevented, if valid data and medical reports were quoted and the true reason for absenteeism was determined. Placing argument on incomplete data is always indefensible.
Comments
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: 23 15
No. of Words: 438 350
No. of Characters: 2153 1500
No. of Different Words: 231 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.575 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.916 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.573 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.043 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.385 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.435 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.254 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.477 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.04 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 160, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'doctors'' or 'doctor's'?
Suggestion: doctors'; doctor's
...ource of information which could be any doctors recommendation or someone from medical ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 525, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , its
...ld strengthen the authors point. However,its absence merely weakens his argument. ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 178, Rule ID: IT_IS[17]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: It's; It is
... suffer with cold only these two times. Its a common symptom which generally people...
^^^
Line 9, column 98, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...made by the author do not have rigid and a firm ground, which easily make it vuln...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2202.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 437.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03890160183 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57214883401 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65438530623 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.54004576659 0.468620217663 115% => OK
syllable_count: 692.1 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.926318789 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.7391304348 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.39130434783 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0863117498929 0.218282227539 40% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0211837634566 0.0743258471296 29% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0419774588286 0.0701772020484 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0468231878025 0.128457276422 36% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0331126260396 0.0628817314937 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.02 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.