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 at first glance seems logical becuAn 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. ase it states a plausible way to combat vitamin A deficiency among people in Tagus. However, the justification of the recommendations lacks sufficient evidence and enough details.
Firstly, millet may very well be a staple food in Tagus, but whether people will adopt the new variety lacks substantial evidence. It is not clear whether this new variety tastes or looks the same as the original one, becuase this may impact whether people adopt it or not. Suppose, for example the millet changes its color to yellow after genetic engineering; in this case, people may steer away from buying and consuming the food, becuase they may not like how it looks. The same reasoning can be made if it tastes different from the original one.
Furthermore, it is stated that this new type of millet cost more. Even though the farmers willl be paid subsidies for it, it is not clear whether the price of it for the consumers will be the same or not. If the price increases, people may become less interested in buying the food and may look for an alternative cheaper food. On the other hand, if the price decreases, people may readily adopt this variety.
In conlcusion, since the argument lacks sound evidence whether people will readily adopt the new variety of millet, we can not justify the recommendation that the government of Tagus should promote it.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 327 350
No. of Characters: 1547 1500
No. of Different Words: 144 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.252 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.731 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.581 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 112 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 74 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 38 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 30 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.154 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.727 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.692 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.413 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.597 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.136 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 567, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Ase
...can to promote this new type of millet. ase it states a plausible way to combat vit...
^^^
Line 5, column 411, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... people may readily adopt this variety. In conlcusion, since the argument lacks ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, look, may, so, well, while, for example, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 13.6137724551 15% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1593.0 2260.96107784 70% => OK
No of words: 327.0 441.139720559 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.87155963303 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65041833223 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.464831804281 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 507.6 705.55239521 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.3917348315 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.2 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.524858403225 0.218282227539 240% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.186439822157 0.0743258471296 251% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.153175418025 0.0701772020484 218% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.311097719457 0.128457276422 242% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.227997884343 0.0628817314937 363% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
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: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.72 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 98.500998004 64% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.