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 new breed of millet engineered by the development organisation claims to have a positive impact on the people of Tagus. The government has already addressed major questions pertaining to introducing this new type of millet to its citizens - the cost of production, its health impact as well as the scale of adoption.
We need to however address some more important questions before we can completely recommend replacing the older variety with the newer one.
It has already been noted that the people of Tagus are suffering from vitamin A deficiency. To address this, the new breed of millet rich in vitamin A was developed. However, when discussing the impact of vitamins or intake of nutrients, it is important to understand their impact on the overall health of a human. We need to ask whether the amount of vitamin A in millet is within the range of recommended doses provided by medical experts, and whether there is any adverse impact on overdose or excessive intake of vitamin A, as we know that not just the deficiency, but excess of nutrients can also cause health problems.
Apart from the medical impact, we need to question its agricultural impact as well. Even though subsidies are provided for these new type of millet, purchasing seeds is not the only costly affair. Is farming the new breed feasible given the climate and soil conditions of Tagus? And if so, is it costlier or more difficult to sustain than the current agricultural practices? Answering these questions will help us to understand how many farmers will willingly take up farming the new type of millet as opposed to continuing with their older methods, and if it will be profitable for them to take up millet farming.
We need to question the method of engineering the new type of millet as well. What is the reputation of the international organisation in terms of aiding impoverished nations and developments in science? Are the methods of production of the new breed ethical and supported by health organisations like the WHO? Do they follow proper health and medical standards? We also need to be aware of the research behind the engineered seeds. Are they still in experimental stage, or has sufficient sample testing been done before releasing them to the market?
Asking these questions will help us gain an all-round picture of whether the new breed of millet will be helpful to the denizens of Tagus.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
Let's analyze the structure of the statement and argue accordingly:
condition 1:
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
condition 2:
Since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt the new variety. //maybe people don't like the taste.
conclusion:
To combat vitamin A deficiency, the government of Tagus should do everything it can to promote this new type of millet. //it may have better approaches.
------------------
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 406 350
No. of Characters: 1952 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.489 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.808 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.725 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 104 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.368 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.859 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.526 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.328 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.328 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.146 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 208, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nations and developments in science? Are the methods of production of the new bre...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, still, well, apart from, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1994.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 406.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.91133004926 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7796245909 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492610837438 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 630.0 705.55239521 89% => 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: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.8673408757 57.8364921388 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.947368421 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3684210526 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.31578947368 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => 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: 0.392148994092 0.218282227539 180% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119910598332 0.0743258471296 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0935542202175 0.0701772020484 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.191355950815 0.128457276422 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.084161631759 0.0628817314937 134% => 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: 11.2 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
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: 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.