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."
The argument claims that there is a cogent relationship between preventing students’ absenteeism and their fish consumption. The author holds that by people’s consuming fish nearby East Meria, the incidence of cold has taken a nosedive; people visit doctors only once or two per year. So it seems fair to suggest that daily using fish oil could be implied as a practical way to halter cold; it can reduce absenteeism among the schools. Although at first glance, this argument is a logical approach, it contains various problematic issues which are should be answered.
Firstly, the author mentions a report which is held nearby East Meria, as well as, claims that because the fish consumption is vast in the region, people’s affection by cold is has a low rate; however, there are not any supportive ideas. He does not mention any reports’ data, statistical information, or results to buttress this idea, cogently. The author should pay attention to this principle that there are many factors which have a great impression on increasing cold’s incidence. For example, a vast rate of genomic rearrangement of bacteria or viruses could increase people’s affection by cold. Furthermore, inclement weather takes a Centre stage to escalate the number of patients because this phenomenon creates a stressful situation in which the incidence of cold could augment. Thus, without any cogent or illustrated data, the author should not conclude any results, especially between food consumption and the increased rate of absenteeism.
Another thing is that the author presumes that people’s referring to doctor, once or twice per year, is equable with the incidence of cold. Besides, he links this phenomenon to the lifestyle or consuming fish in the region. Maybe many affected people either have not visited doctors or preferred the home treatment. Without specific date, repudiating or confirming the idea will be demanding and problematic.
Last but not least, the arguer considers that the main reason related to the absenteeism is cold. Although at first, it is a logical idea, the author does not put forth any facts to support his position. For example, cold or inclement weather could be insinuated as a potential reason for absenteeism. For supporting his ideas, the author should mention specific statistics or results which are derived from various surveys. These surveys could bolster the author’s position or repudiate that.
To cap it all, the author concludes that oils consumption stemmed from fish, could halter absenteeism indirectly and is an appropriate way to slacken cold’s rate. Nevertheless, the author does not render any supportive information to buttress his idea about the possible linkage between fish oil consumption, the lower rate of cold, and as a result, the rate of absenteeism.
In a nutshell, the argument is not sound and needs further information to be evaluated. It may have been strengthened by putting forward some data, information, and specific statistical results to show the possible links between fish consumption, decreased rate of cold, and the lower rate of absenteeism.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 496 350
No. of Characters: 2546 1500
No. of Different Words: 227 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.719 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.133 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.761 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 195 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 155 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.565 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.717 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.565 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.504 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.063 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 236, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
... Meria, the incidence of cold has taken a nosedive; people visit doctors only once or two ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 579, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ic issues which are should be answered. Firstly, the author mentions a report wh...
^^^^
Line 4, column 500, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...thor's position or repudiate that. To cap it all, the author concludes that...
^^^
Line 6, column 307, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...old, and the lower rate of absenteeism.
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, then, thus, well, another thing, for example, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2671.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 496.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38508064516 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71922212354 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00243719831 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.487903225806 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 798.3 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.2144647882 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.130434783 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5652173913 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.4347826087 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.134893891895 0.218282227539 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0436949207328 0.0743258471296 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0581307585872 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0789914415492 0.128457276422 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0587158531649 0.0628817314937 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
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: 13.98 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.