GRE Argument: An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, far

In the aforementioned argument, the author has stated that the Government of Tagus should try its’ level best to promote the newly engineered millet, the supposition being the new variety is rich in Vitamin A. Despite the fact that the argument apparently appears to be logical, however, if read with scrutiny, one can conclude that it is rife with various loopholes which need to be corrected.
To begin with, firstly, the author has mentioned that the new millet variety is rich in vitamin A. Thus, he is attempting to convince the government for promoting this breed. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to prove this assumption that the variety would be truly beneficial for the people of Tagus. If the author had cited a clear evidence of the new variety grown in some other village and its’ effect on local populace, the argument would have been more reasonable.
Secondly, it has been stated that the new variety is developed for the nourishment of the populace. However, it might be probable that already the people of Tagus may be cultivating a breed which is rich in vitamin A. But, due to financial reasons or owing to the rarity of the breed, the farmers may have stopped its’ cultivation. In this case, the government should be convinced for the increase in cultivation of this variety rather than developing a new variety altogether.
Thirdly, it is assumed by the author that people would adopt the new breed as millet is already a part of their diet. Nevertheless, such a presupposition can be viewed the other way round. If millet is already a staple diet, then why would the local people invest more and by the somewhat same breed, although in a new form? The author has stated that the farmers would be paid proper subsidies owing to the high cost of millet. However, not every civilian of Tagus is a farmer. Therefore, if another vitamin rich variety is available, the people would prefer that breed rather than paying for the new millet.
Conclusively, the argument should undoubtedly state the above mentioned clauses and give their proper justification for it to appear more convincing .

Votes
Average: 2.3 (3 votes)
Essay Categories

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
In the aforementioned argument, the auth...
^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... loopholes which need to be corrected. To begin with, firstly, the author has m...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ument would have been more reasonable. Secondly, it has been stated that the ne...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n developing a new variety altogether. Thirdly, it is assumed by the author tha...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 616, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... rather than paying for the new millet. Conclusively, the argument should undoub...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 155, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ication for it to appear more convincing .
^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, to begin with

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1771.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 359.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.93314763231 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35284910392 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73088050514 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.467966573816 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 558.0 705.55239521 79% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.7294219594 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.176470588 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1176470588 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.17647058824 5.70786347227 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.298438756566 0.218282227539 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109174823028 0.0743258471296 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0654858387544 0.0701772020484 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171583495437 0.128457276422 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0669392869203 0.0628817314937 106% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.

argument 1 -- not OK

argument 2 -- not OK

argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 359 350
No. of Characters: 1706 1500
No. of Different Words: 164 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.353 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.752 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.604 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 120 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 85 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 52 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.643 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.688 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.786 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.383 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.605 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5