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's argument on providing an innovative treatment to help a significant reduce in absenteeism from schools and workplaces does not cogently substantiate the need for the increase in consumption of fish oil among the school-going and working population of west Meria. The author's argument is ver much rife with holes and assumptions as to prove the validity of the various recommendations he proposes.
Firstly, the author states that the fish consumption in the east Meria is very high among the people of east Meria. One question that needs to be answered here is that, how is the supply of fish facilitated in east Meria as compared to west Meria?. The author fails to elucidate on the reasons for the difference in fish consumption in the diets of the people in east and west Meria. It is possible that east Meria is closer to the sea than the west side and thus comprises of a lot of fishermen or people dealing in the business of fish markets. If this is true then, it can help in proving why there is less consumption of fish in west Meria. Moreover, it can also invalidate the author's argument, if the fish market involves trade, then increasing fish consumption in west Meria will be difficult to reach the conclusion.
Secondly, the author further states that there was a study report, based on which the author claims that there is a high consumption of fish among the people of east Meria. Two questions that can be conspicously espoused here are, how many people were a part of the survey in the study report and which all food items were included in the survey report?. If the people surveyed for the report were only the ones who were engaged with markets and activities involved with fish trade, then there is very much a possibility that these people provided their families and themselves with higher quantities of fish products than any other product. Also, if fish related products amd supplements were the only food item included in the survey, then the possibility of any other food item having a stronger impact on the health of an individual is clearly cancelled out. Thus, the author needs to provide a substantial proof of the limits of the report and carry out a normed survey if this assumption does not prove to be valid.
Aditionally, the author's only reason for a factor of absenteeism in schools and workplaces in west Meria is the less supplement consumption in a diet resulting in colds among the people of west Meria. However, a very important question that needs to addressed here is, wheteher or not the author has carried out a normed survey and examined the popularity of other factors resulting in reasons that lead to absenteeism?. It is possible the author did not scrutinize the multiple factors(if any) that persuade an individual to skip a day in school or workplace. If so, then this is a huge reason for the failure of the argument's primary goal and it would completely invalidate the purpose of the argument.
Thus, the author's underlying assumptions might hold true to some extent or might be true as a whole in order to prove the recommendation for the daily use of nutritional supplements among the people of west Meria. Although the various questions and assumptions must be validated by the recommendations required in order to prove the cogency of the argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 5, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
The authors argument on providing an innovative tre...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 280, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...d working population of west Meria. The authors argument is ver much rife with holes an...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 465, Rule ID: COMPRISES_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'comprises' or 'consists of'?
Suggestion: comprises; consists of
... to the sea than the west side and thus comprises of a lot of fishermen or people dealing in...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 683, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...a. Moreover, it can also invalidate the authors argument, if the fish market involves t...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, thus, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 81.0 55.5748502994 146% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2760.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 573.0 441.139720559 130% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8167539267 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89258810929 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76396928473 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.408376963351 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 856.8 705.55239521 121% => 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
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 49.7904194858 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.263157895 119.503703932 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.1578947368 23.324526521 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.42105263158 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.147440357402 0.218282227539 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.05917088569 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0506613572707 0.0701772020484 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0933231416758 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0439564990233 0.0628817314937 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.3799401198 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.49 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.27 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 98.500998004 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => 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.