It might seem logical, at the first glance, to agree with the author of the letter to engineer a new breed of millet high in vitamin A to compensate the vitamin A deficiency among people in Tagus. However, the writer relies on what might be less credible evidence or even unproven assumptions that I will distinguish them below.
Firstly, the argument states that people would adopt the new breed of millet easily since millet is already a fixed food in Tagus, but the organization should consider the taste and the texture of the millet to be similar to the original millet. If people do not like the taste of new breed they would prefer to use the former millet and the program would fail. In order to succeed in this program, the organization should consider the taste of the millet to be better or the same as the original one and then initiate the program.
Secondly, it is stated in the argument that the seeds for the new breed of millet are expensive and farmers will be paid subsidies by the organization to cultivate these seeds, but the argument does not mention the number of subsidies. Perhaps the subsidies would not be enough for buying new seeds and farmers have to pay additional money. As this nation is impoverished, farmers cannot afford to buy seeds and the program would fail. Without ruling out this reason, the organization cannot simply justify its proposal.
Another factor that mentioned in the argument is that this program is considered for vitamin A deficiency. However, the organization can improve the vitamin A by other programs such as cultivating cheaper crops or improve the awareness of people about their health and the importance of vitamin A. In addition, the organization should improve its relationship with the government, because without government’s support the organization cannot follow any programs.
In order to improve the argument as a whole, the organization should collect data from a survey that ask people’s opinion about the program. Perhaps people can give feedback that assists the organization in making the better decision because this program is related to the people’s lives and people can support it by adopting the new breed and cultivate new seeds or reject it.
To put it briefly, despite the argument suffers from several problems, we cannot absolutely rely on it or reject it without perusing any additional assumptions. The author can strengthen his or her assertion by changing states referred to the mentioned solutions. Without these changes, the argument is implausible and the reasoning is faulty.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 428 350
No. of Characters: 2106 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.548 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.921 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.633 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 171 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.987 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.353 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.65 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.141 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 169, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'program'?
Suggestion: program
...tion can improve the vitamin A by other programs such as cultivating cheaper crops or im...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
briefly, but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, in addition, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2174.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 428.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07943925234 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79081523282 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 204.123752495 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.453271028037 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 679.5 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.9911565231 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.882352941 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1764705882 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.35294117647 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => 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: 0.321446921309 0.218282227539 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104230409474 0.0743258471296 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0968773457478 0.0701772020484 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164839055541 0.128457276422 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0971891179849 0.0628817314937 155% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => 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.