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, farmers will be paid subsidies for farming the new variety of millet. Since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt the new variety. To combat vitamin A deficiency, the government of Tagus should do everything it can to promote this new type of millet.
The argument presented here by author asks for the questions one may raise to the government of Tagus to promote a new breed of millet high in vitamin A engineered by international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus.
To start with, authentication of the international development organization raises the questions. One must have proper information on the organization who is proposing the newly engineered millet breed. Organization's authenticity should be judged properly before taking any decision.
Moreover, no experimental data is put forward to support the effectiveness of the new breed. Only making new breed rich in Vitamin A does not mean human body will start accepting it outright. For example, deficiency of calcium cannot be improved by increasing the dosage of calcium rich diet only. Calcium needs vitamin D to bind and assimilate in the human body. It means vitamin D is also required in order to combat calcium deficiency. Similarly, this argument lacks any information in that area whether any other component is also required additionally or vitamin A diet alone will do the work.
Further, it is mentioned the Tagus is an impoverished nation and it is also highlighted that the new breed is costly. No data is presented about existence of other alternative which may be cheaper. In unavailability of comparison between other alternatives, it is not recommended for government to take a decision which is exorbitant.
Lastly it is mentioned that millet is the staple food of Tagus, so putting the new millet in of the market would produce unknown results because it is not mentioned that how public will react to its taste.
Everyone depends on millet, unavailability of old millet, if in case public dislike new millet can cause hungriness in the nation as it takes time to grow as well.
In conclusion, the government should look after all the above mentioned before making any promotion for the newly engineered breed of millet in Tagus. This argument is insufficient to make any conclusion for recommendation to Tagus Government.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- OK
argument 4 -- OK
----------------
for argument 1 and argument 2, need to argue this:
While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be paid subsidies for farming the new variety of millet. //maybe the subsidies are less than the cost.
--------------------
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: 17 15
No. of Words: 346 350
No. of Characters: 1754 1500
No. of Different Words: 176 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.313 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.069 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.106 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 126 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 94 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.353 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.076 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.618 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.099 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, lastly, look, may, moreover, similarly, so, then, well, after all, for example, in conclusion, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1803.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 346.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21098265896 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1592979844 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.505780346821 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 589.5 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => 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: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.957843747 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.058823529 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3529411765 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.94117647059 5.70786347227 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
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: 0.438580538358 0.218282227539 201% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121459949188 0.0743258471296 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.111051876123 0.0701772020484 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.203121429122 0.128457276422 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.127314872215 0.0628817314937 202% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.