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 p

Essay topics:

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.

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

The author argues that the efficient way to combat vitamin A deficiency is by promoting the engineered type of millet. This solution for them is likely to work because millet is a staple food and people will be paid subsidies for farming it. These arguments are ambiguous and leave room to a number of questions that need to be answered.

The first question to be asked is: whether these impoverished people will be able to buy and farm the seeds of this highly expensive millet? Even if the author states that the government will pay subsidies for farming it, this amount of money would not be enough for them to buy the seeds and be able to farm and make them grow. In fact, these people are already weak and they will need powerful tools to do the job instead of them. So more expenses will be added and the seeds are more likely to never grow.

Secondly: Wouldn't it be better to use that money wasted on engineering new types of millet into proving the essential need of the citizens? Indeed, People are poor and they need the necessities to live a good life that will reflect on their health. If that money was used to provide healthy food to them, they will be healthier and have efficient vitamins.

Thirdly: Is this solution the most effective one? The inhabitants are weak and vitamin deficient because they are poor. They have no money to buy the essential food. In addition, there is no data that shows if the soil of this nation is perfect for their growth and if there is enough water for them. Thus, this solutions will only cause them to be poorer and weaker. Many other solutions could be opted like finding the cause of the impoverishment and implement strategies that will reverse it. Use Everything to create new factories and job positions, strengthen the educational system instead of promoting a solution that might not work.

In conclusion, the solution provided by the author is superficial as it fails to answer many questions including the ones above. More studies and thinking should be made in order to provide an accurate solution to the real problem that engenders are the smaller ones.

Votes
Average: 3.9 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 11, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: Wouldn't
...more likely to never grow. Secondly: Wouldnt it be better to use that money wasted o...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 22, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
... to never grow. Secondly: Wouldnt it be better to use that money wasted on engi...
^^
Line 7, column 308, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...f there is enough water for them. Thus, this solutions will only cause them to be po...
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, in addition, in conclusion, in fact

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1755.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 374.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.69251336898 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3976220399 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43696739595 2.78398813304 88% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.489304812834 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 546.3 705.55239521 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.6009741844 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.3684210526 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6842105263 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05263157895 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.296591127699 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0917226485756 0.0743258471296 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0677246945722 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164988568219 0.128457276422 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0715483160081 0.0628817314937 114% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 14.3799401198 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.92 12.5979740519 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.83 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 98.500998004 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.

argument 1 -- not exactly. should be: can the subsides cover the cost for farmers?

argument 2 -- not OK. we may ask like: do people like the taste?

argument 3 -- OK
----------------

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 375 350
No. of Characters: 1709 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.401 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.557 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.403 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 110 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 75 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 53 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.737 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.734 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.526 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.28 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.515 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.1 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5