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 of the memo recommends that people in West Meria use a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil to prevent colds and consequently reduce absenteeism in schools and workplaces. The author recommends this based on the findings from a study in East Meria where fish consumption is very high and people visit doctors only once or twice a year for treatment of cold. However, before the argument can be properly evaluated, one would need answers to the following questoins.
Firstly, do all the people who contact cold visit the doctor for treatment in East Meria? The author prematurely assumes that everyone who had suffered from cold visited the doctor for treatment. However, this may not be true. There is a possibility that not all the people who suffered from cold visited the doctor for treatment - perhaps, the cold being a minor allergy, many patients did not feel the need to visit a doctor to alleviate their condition. Furthermore, there is a possibility that many people in East Meria do not have the requisite financial means to visit a doctor frequently and thus, people visited the doctor only rarely for treatment of cold. If the above scenarios turn out to be true, then the author's recommendation is significantly weakened.
Secondly, does consuming fish actually reduce the occurence of cold in people? The author fallaciously confuses causation for correlation. The author does not specify any scientific study the proves his claim. And without any scientific study backing his claim, it would be imprudent for one to follow the author's recommendatoin. There is a possibility that the people of East Meria are inherently less susceptable to cold. If a scientific study proves that consuming fish does not play any role in reducing the occurence of cold, the author's argument does not hold water.
Finally, what is the basis for concluding that absenteeism in schools and workplaces is primariy due to cold? The author does not specify any study that serves as a basis for his assertion. Without any imperical study proving what the author has claimed, one cannot follow the author's recommendation. If a study has been conducted and it shows that there are myriad reasons for absenteeism in the schools and the workplaces and not just cold, then the author's basis for his recommendation is significantly weakened.
Therefore, the argument, as it stands, is unpersuasive as the author does not provide any information addressing the above posed questions. One will be in a better position to evaluate the argument if the author can provide answers to the above question in a detailed manner leaving no room for ambiguity.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 10 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 437 350
No. of Characters: 2175 1500
No. of Different Words: 182 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.572 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.977 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.788 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.81 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.56 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.367 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.579 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.124 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 720, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...scenarios turn out to be true, then the authors recommendation is significantly weakene...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 536, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... in reducing the occurence of cold, the authors argument does not hold water. Finall...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 278, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...thor has claimed, one cannot follow the authors recommendation. If a study has been con...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 453, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... workplaces and not just cold, then the authors basis for his recommendation is signifi...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 255, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a detailed manner" with adverb for "detailed"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...n provide answers to the above question in a detailed manner leaving no room for ambiguity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, consequently, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2226.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 437.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0938215103 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57214883401 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86654723575 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.430205949657 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 693.9 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.733827921 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.0 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8095238095 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.85714285714 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.120288710686 0.218282227539 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0470383200405 0.0743258471296 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0383135898512 0.0701772020484 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0768034547049 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.048516575633 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => 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: 12.24 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.