The author concludes that the way to combat Vitamin A deficiency in Tagus would be promoting a new type of millet rich in Vitamin A. This conclusion is based on the evidence that Tagus is an impoverished nation with a deficiency of Vitamin A. If provided with a solution to combat this deficiency in the form of millet, people will adopt it. This argument raises a lot of questions and would be unsubstantiated without evidence answering those questions.
The scope and influence of the International organization is not mentioned. How did it discern that there was a vitamin A deficiency in the first place? What were the methods used to engineer the new breed of millet? Were there proper clinical trials to check if the genetically engineered crop did not have any adverse side effects on consumption?
The author assumes that granting subsidy to farmers and millet being the staple food, will make the farmers grow the new crops and the people consume them. With lack of factual evidence, it engenders doubts regarding its validity. What if farmers were skeptical to grow new millet due to the fear of alienating their traditional customers? What if [people were orthodox or paranoid to switch to the new millet crop? What if millet was never the staple crop in the first place? There has been no indication of an analysis to ascertain these facts.
The solution proposed is that the government should promote the new variety of millet. A government should have its citizens' best interests at heart. How can it know the crop is safe? In an impoverished nation, why would the Government accept the claims of new millet being a panacea of its problems coming from an international organization?
Keeping the above questions in mind, it is easy to believe that the recommendation will not have the predicted denouement unless there are answers. While it is understandable to believe that the genetically engineered crop will be adopted because it aims to solve a deficiency, people do not adapt to change readily without concrete evidence.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK. need to argue:
Since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt the new variety.
//maybe people don't like the taste
Since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt the new variety.
argument 2 -- not exactly. better way: maybe the cost is over the subsidies.
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 343 350
No. of Characters: 1669 1500
No. of Different Words: 172 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.304 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.866 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.798 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 121 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 88 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.056 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.19 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.444 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.302 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.548 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.066 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 349, Rule ID: EN_UNPAIRED_BRACKETS
Message: Unpaired symbol: ']' seems to be missing
...ng their traditional customers? What if [people were orthodox or paranoid to swit...
^
Line 5, column 417, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...anoid to switch to the new millet crop? What if millet was never the staple crop in ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, regarding, so, while, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1710.0 2260.96107784 76% => OK
No of words: 343.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98542274052 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85291231984 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.504373177843 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 540.9 705.55239521 77% => 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: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.1612686553 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.5 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.15 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.55 5.70786347227 45% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.33880873729 0.218282227539 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.099787163175 0.0743258471296 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0887288827162 0.0701772020484 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.174866998545 0.128457276422 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.091245521813 0.0628817314937 145% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 14.3799401198 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.