The following report 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. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds represent the most frequently given reason for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid — 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 specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In the recent newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council, it is mentioned that the new innovative treatment can lower absenteeism by preventing colds on the students and employees. The assertion is based on the fact that the main cause of the absenteeism is cold. The argument as a whole is based on incomplete evidence and more information is required to check the viability of the claim.
The argument assumes that the students and workers are 100% accurate; but doesn’t provide any evidences to buttress the idea. For instance, it might be possible that the students and workers are shirks, and they pretend to have cold because of the laziness. Also it might be possible that they don’t like the environment under which they are working-maybe the employer and higher ranked seniors are bad tempered or ill mannered- or studying- maybe the teaching methods are dull and boring. If any of this hold true, then the argument is significantly weakened.
Similarly, the argument believes that visiting the doctors once or twice per year means that the people are less affected by cold. In other words, there are no any methods to prevent cold in home; but in fact this might be the possible case that the people of East Meria have method to cure cold in own house. Also, the argument assumes that the both places –East and West Meria- have similar circumstances which might not be true as the argument provides no facts to shore up the statement. If any of these have merit, then the argument as a whole doesn’t hold water.
Furthermore, it is mentioned that the use of Ichthaid can cure cold but what are the doses required and what are the facts to support it? For example, it might be possible that it works for the some of the people of East Meria but not the people of West Meria. More evidences are required to corroborate this statement, else the argument is significantly undermined.
In conclusion, the argument is based on several unwarranted assumptions and the evidences provided are insufficient. Therefore, the aforementioned evidences are required so that we can analyze the practicality, whether the claim to use the new innovative treatment in order to prevent colds and lower absenteeism is suitable or not.
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 383 350
No. of Characters: 1808 1500
No. of Different Words: 167 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.424 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.721 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.666 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 109 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.938 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.957 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.362 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5