The presented article while making an intriguing introduction of an alluring medical breakthrough, leaves rooms too many loopholes that render the given argument specious.
Despite the fact that writer clearly states “colds represent the most frequently given reason for absences”, he/she ignorantly continues to believe that reduction in cases of cold would lead to lower absence rate. First off, it is paramount to note that what people declare as the reason behind their absence may not necessary be honest; furthermore the writer must perform additional investigations to determine whether the cases of colds directly correlating to the occurred absences has diminished or not, since many adults don’t visit doctor for minor cases of cold and simply resort to self-medicating.
In addition, the writer is falling for a classic case of “cum hoc” fallacy. Before proclaiming the marine dietary habits as the cause of lower cold cases, an extensive and scientifically credible research must be conducted to determine the potential relationship between the mentioned factors. As a matter of fact, a simpler reason such as a warmer more temperate weather pattern in East Meria could be the root. Or perhaps East Merian are more frugal than their western neighbor when it comes to paying for regular visit to a medical facility.
Lastly, would adding a supplement derived from fish oil actually be the panacea of flu season crisis? Even now, despite years of research doctors haven’t confirmed vitamin C pills, an already available and known supplement, being effective against cold, so how can the writer make such a bold assertion with such perfunctory evidence? Besides, is Ichthaid the origin of the all-healing fishes of East Meria or is it produced from another race of fishes?
The prompt above is abound assumptions that provide no firm basis therefore must be further scrutinized by specialists before being taken into account.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 11 15
No. of Words: 310 350
No. of Characters: 1592 1500
No. of Different Words: 204 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.196 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.135 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.746 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 57 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.182 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.819 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.727 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.333 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.057 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 15, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'add'
Suggestion: add
...t to a medical facility. Lastly, would adding a supplement derived from fish oil actu...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 152, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...alists before being taken into account.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, first, furthermore, if, lastly, may, so, therefore, while, in addition, such as, as a matter of fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1646.0 2260.96107784 73% => OK
No of words: 307.0 441.139720559 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36156351792 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80864880341 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.664495114007 0.468620217663 142% => OK
syllable_count: 509.4 705.55239521 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 19.7664670659 56% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 84.8113122035 57.8364921388 147% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.636363636 119.503703932 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.9090909091 23.324526521 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.8181818182 5.70786347227 190% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0853577684512 0.218282227539 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0344607628319 0.0743258471296 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0308595074245 0.0701772020484 44% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0430708020939 0.128457276422 34% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0287780045172 0.0628817314937 46% => 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: 17.8 14.3799401198 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.3550499002 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.53 8.32208582834 127% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.