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.
In the given memo, the author makes a recommendation for daily use of nutritional suppliments that consist of fish oil with an assumption of reducing absenteeism and cold. The recommendation is based on several unwarranted premises, which, if true, might indicate that the recommendation holds water. However, as it stands now, the author must provide answers to following three questions before the plausibility of the recommendation be assessed.
First of all, what if the immunity of people nearby East Meria against cold is due to some other reasons rather than higher consumption of fish? Maybe, the climate in that particular region is pretty moderate and do not go through intense cold, which notoriously increase the cases of people catching cold. Also, the people in that reason could be immune to cold because of some kinds of special medicinal herbs only available in that reason. It can not be stated clearly unless the question regarding the direct relation of fish consumption and its medical benefits is answered. In absence of proper answer to this question, plausibility of the recommendation is highly weakened.
Moreover, could the reason given by student and employee for frequent absence be trusted? Maybe the people in that area are busy in some other seasonal works and involve themselves to complete those tasks, while presenting the cold as a reason for absence. The author must find answers regarding the true data of absence rather than trusting students and employee with their answers. For example, often in our school days, we tend to make some hypothetical medical situation in rainy days to avoid going to school. In reality, we just wanted a peaceful day at home sipping hot tea and watching movie.
Finally, how can the author be so sure of general people readily adopting the fish oil based nutritional suppliments to enhance their immunity against cold? Maybe those suppliments will turn out expensive compared to other options. Also, the general people might treat them as just another common over-the-counter medicine for cold and only buy them when they actually catch cold. For instance, here in Nepal, the polio drops were supposed to assist in reducing the polio infection rate in rural areas. However, people were very reluctant to go upto nearby booths to get the drops for their children. As a result, the polio infection rate is still high in Nepal. This indicates that the general public might not be easily convinced to use something new, irrespective of the benefits it brings along. Unless the author provide answer in this front, the recommendation might not effective enough.
To conclude, the author must provide proper answers for above mentioned three questions to enhance the credibility of the recommendation. In absence of proper answer, the recommendation falls flat with out proper support.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 462 350
No. of Characters: 2336 1500
No. of Different Words: 236 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.636 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.056 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.726 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 173 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.087 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.174 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.609 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.284 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.491 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.089 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 688, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... high in Nepal. This indicates that the general public might not be easily convinced to use so...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 198, Rule ID: WITH_OUT[1]
Message: This word is usually written together. Did you mean 'without'?
Suggestion: without
...r answer, the recommendation falls flat with out proper support.
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, still, while, for example, for instance, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2401.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 462.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19696969697 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63618218583 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77544297596 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 244.0 204.123752495 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528138528139 0.468620217663 113% => OK
syllable_count: 744.3 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.5997393023 57.8364921388 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 104.391304348 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0869565217 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.13043478261 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0544636222833 0.218282227539 25% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0154954850493 0.0743258471296 21% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0290726113497 0.0701772020484 41% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0307960392173 0.128457276422 24% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0212947333845 0.0628817314937 34% => 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: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 98.500998004 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.