The author of this argument makes the statement that daily use of Ichthaid could prevent colds and lower absenteeism in West Meria. However, this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to start such a program.
First, the arguer’s recommendation relies on what might be a poor analogy between West Meria and East Meria. How similar are these two areas is a question that need to be answered. The analogy incorrectly depends on the assumption that residents in West Meria and East Meria are similar, but it is highly possible that residents in two areas has different lifestyle. For instance, people in East Meria may be poorer and usually not willing to pay for Vitamins tablets, which makes them need to eat more fish to attain necessary Vitamins, while individuals in West Meria may usually take Vitamins tablets which contains Ichthaid every day. Definitely, if there is evidence on such difference, the argument would be weakened.
Second, even if residents in two areas are quite similar, the author need to answer how to identify the causal relationship between Ichthaid consumption and preventing colds. The author observes a correlation between fish consumption and avoiding colds, but fails to build a rightful causal relationship between them. It is highly possible that other omitted factors contribute to preventing colds. For instance, perhaps East Meria has a warmer climate. This would make people in East Meria less likely to have cold, as well as attracting more fish and make fish consumption cheaper. It is also possible that government in East Meria introduced some policy that encourage people to exercises more often. Even if there is evidence that fish consumption could preventing colds, the author still needs to provide more evidence that it is Ichthaid, rather than other nutritional supplement, has prevented colds.
Third, the author mentioned a study that stated people in East Meria hardly visit doctors for colds. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that study. The conclusion of that study may derived from a survey which just asked a small group of people. Unless the study is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author's argument.
In conclusion, the author wrongly compares residents in West Meria and East Meria, assuming questionable causal relationship and quoted a study which may not valid or reliable. All these questions need to be answered in order to better evaluate the recommendation.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 413 350
No. of Characters: 2077 1500
No. of Different Words: 192 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.508 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.029 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.644 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 141 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.65 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.181 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.327 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.538 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 759, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'prevent'
Suggestion: prevent
...is evidence that fish consumption could preventing colds, the author still needs to provid...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 369, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...can not be used to effectively back the authors argument. In conclusion, the author ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, still, third, thus, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 55.5748502994 76% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2142.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 413.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.18644067797 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50803742585 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74526730267 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486682808717 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 660.6 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.4626295567 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.1 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.65 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.70786347227 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.106668844234 0.218282227539 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0375307931045 0.0743258471296 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0399188423368 0.0701772020484 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0690392257914 0.128457276422 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0217352896129 0.0628817314937 35% => 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: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => 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: 12.82 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => 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: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.