The recommendation stated that poor nation Tagus should do everything to promote the new breed of millet for eliminating vitamin A deficiency is not entirely cogent, since it ignores pivotal assumption and the research is also incomplete as well.
First, the recommendation assumes that international development organization engineered a new variety of breed of millet which is very high in vitamin A. However, it is unwarranted because the recommendation did not mention about the scientific evidence of rich in vitamin A of that new breed of millet and also did not mention about their earlier result whose showed the new breed of millet helped to eradicate vitamin A deficiency.
Second, the recommendation never addresses how much it cost and how much amount the farmers will have to pay for this new breed. The recommendation already mention that Tagus is impoverished then how could it be possible to pay the subsidies amount. In addition, the recommendation is very poor in mentioning about the farmers economic condition and their ability to adopt new breed. They may not be ready to pay money for new breed. Survey is lacking and the farmers mindset towards new breed and their economy.
Finally, the argument omits the other food which also contains the vitamin A very high. Further, how can the recommendation suggests the poor nation to implement the high cost of millet breed to improve the vitamin A deficiency. Government may have thinking different perspective to eliminate the vitamin A deficiency and it does not make any sense to follow one organization recommendation with out any study.
Thus, the recommendation is unsound. The evidence in support of the conclusion is not reliable and trustworthy. Ultimately, the recommendation might have been buttressed by development organization to implement their new breed for their practice but not because of their concern to eradicate the vitamin A deficiency in the poor nation Tagus.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not exactly
argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 04 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 314 350
No. of Characters: 1613 1500
No. of Different Words: 140 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.21 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.137 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.072 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 112 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 58 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.154 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 16.148 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.769 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.404 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.648 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.119 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 461, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'farmers'' or 'farmer's'?
Suggestion: farmers'; farmer's
...or new breed. Survey is lacking and the farmers mindset towards new breed and their eco...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 392, Rule ID: WITH_OUT[1]
Message: This word is usually written together. Did you mean 'without'?
Suggestion: without
... follow one organization recommendation with out any study. Thus, the recommendation...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, thus, well, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1651.0 2260.96107784 73% => OK
No of words: 314.0 441.139720559 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25796178344 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11435171096 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 204.123752495 70% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.452229299363 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 528.3 705.55239521 75% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => 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: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.3083631355 57.8364921388 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.928571429 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4285714286 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.14285714286 5.70786347227 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => 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: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.383228566689 0.218282227539 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.138382234836 0.0743258471296 186% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0883955442821 0.0701772020484 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.222414648 0.128457276422 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0549147071462 0.0628817314937 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 98.500998004 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 21.0 12.3882235529 170% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.