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.

The decision of an international development organization to promote the use of genetically modified millet varieties to address Vitamin-A deficiencies in the citizens of Tagus is short-sighted and deleterious. This decision has been based on a concerted misinformation campaign by profiteering geneticists and self-interest groups.

The argument suffers from several logical inconsistencies. Firstly, the use of genetically enriched crops as therapeutic substitutes needs to be validated by sound scientific research. Without adequate data, claims that engineered millet crops can act as salubrious reservoirs of Vitamin-A can only be considered speculative.

Furthermore, many genetically modified crops have extremely high temperature and atmospheric sensitivity. Tagus is a tropical country with prolonged summers and an extremely short rainfall season. To ensure that these crops can indeed be used to alleviate the nutritional concerns of Tagus, studies need to be performed to show that the crop can be harvested in large amounts. The new crop should also not impinge on the prevalent agricultural calendar of the land. The model that the organization wishes to enforce in Tagus should be one that can be internationally duplicated.

It is clearly stated in the argument that Tagus is an impoverished nation. In order to cultivate this crop, farmers need to buy sophisticated agricultural equipment, additional feed stock and manure. The costs of these have not been factored into the organization's calculations. Although subsidies can cover seed costs, there is no data to show that costs of procuring machinery and infrastructure will be incentivized by the government. In addition, the quantum of promotional expenditure has also been redacted from the argument. When one considers all of these factors, it is amply clear that the cultivation of this millet is economically untenable.

Perhaps the most rationally flawed argument of the organization is that the people of Tagus will seamlessly adopt this new millet variety. Studies have shown that people are more likely to develop negative genetic predispositions to biologically modified plants and legumes. At times, the introduction of these crops can have detrimental consequences on the health of an individual. Some might develop allergic reactions to a crop that is alien to a particular climatic environment. In order to strengthen the organization's argument, the genetic acceptance and allied health risks of the new millet variety need to be studied, collated and quantified. The residents of Tagus should not be considered as guinea pigs for a research project.

Finally, when one intends to address localized health concerns, one should always look for indigenous solutions. Instead of seeking genetically enriched Vitamin-A sources, the government should promote the consumption of locally available fruits and vegetables that are naturally rich in Vitamin-A. Having indigenous solutions not only allays economic concerns, but also physiological constraints.

It is therefore pellucid that the argument does not completely and factually address public concerns regarding the new millet variety. In the absence of actionable evidence and scientific data, it will not be prudent for the government to accede to the demands of the organization and proceed with an impractical policy decision.

Votes
Average: 6.1 (4 votes)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 138, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'A deficiency' or simply 'deficiencies'?
Suggestion: A deficiency; Deficiencies
...ied millet varieties to address Vitamin A deficiencies in the citizens of Tagus is short-sight...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 229, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...and manure. The costs of these have not be factored into the organizations calcula...
^^
Line 9, column 338, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tion of these crops can have detrimental consequences on the health of an individ...
^^
Line 9, column 512, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'organizations'' or 'organization's'?
Suggestion: organizations'; organization's
...environment. In order to strengthen the organizations argument, the genetic acceptance and al...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 157, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'A source' or simply 'sources'?
Suggestion: A source; Sources
...of seeking genetically enriched Vitamin A sources, the government should promote the cons...
^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, if, regarding, so, then, therefore, in addition

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2868.0 2260.96107784 127% => OK
No of words: 504.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.69047619048 5.12650576532 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30292011788 2.78398813304 119% => OK
Unique words: 258.0 204.123752495 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511904761905 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 916.2 705.55239521 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.951705648 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.222222222 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6666666667 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.92592592593 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.297940738129 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0722097658776 0.0743258471296 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0557447064224 0.0701772020484 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138739677997 0.128457276422 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0475993868634 0.0628817314937 76% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 48.3550499002 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.72 12.5979740519 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.89 8.32208582834 119% => OK
difficult_words: 171.0 98.500998004 174% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.

Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.

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: 26 15
No. of Words: 503 350
No. of Characters: 2814 1500
No. of Different Words: 253 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.736 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.594 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.236 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 221 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 184 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 142 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 105 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.346 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.933 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.269 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.264 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.519 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.034 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 7 5