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 in the given prompt concludes that the government of Tagus should do everything to promote the new type of millet which is rich in Vitamin A. She cites that farmers will be paid subsidies for farming the new variety of millet and also, since it is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt it. However, the argument is rife with holes and flaws and to predict whether the recommendation will have the predicted result, the following questions need to be answered.

To begin, are the subsidies paid to farmers enough to grow the new breed of millet? Is the cost entirely covered by the subsidies they get, or do they have to invest anything from their pockets? Are only seeds' cost to be taken into consideration, or will it require other farming tools that will also add up to the cost? Will it be profitable for them? Are they willing grow the new crop? If the answer to any of the above questions is not affirmative, then the recommendation would not have much substance. The author has to get detailed answers to these questions. For example, if a new ploughing machine is required to grow the new crop, and if a farmer does not have it currently then he may have to buy it, which in turn, would not be profitable for the farmer. And if these costs are more than the subsidies that they get, then the farmer would not want to grow this new crop. The author has to collect proper evidence in order to answer these questions.

Furthermore, is the vitamin content of the new breed of millet sufficient to cure the vitamin A deficiency in people? This has to be thoroughly tested by researchers and doctors before making the claim that it will solve the deficiency problem in people. For instance, the crop does not have the required amount of vitamin A, and people will have to eat in larger quantities to solve their deficiency problem, then it does not provide a viable solution. And only if the new breed of millet has sufficient quantities of vitamin A, it will be profitable and the recommendation is likely to get to its predicted result.

Even if the answers to all the above questions are true, are the impoverished people of Tagus financially capable of buying the new breed of millet? What if currently they are impoverished not because the food is deficient in vitamin A, but because they are not in position to buy the appropriate amount of food? If this is the case, then growing the new breed of millet will not help. the government can be successful in efficiently growing the crop, and even assuming that the new breed will also fall into their staple diet. But, if it is costly and people are not able to buy it, then it will do more harm (maybe because they stopped producing the old type of cheaper-millet) than good to the people.

In conclusion, the recommendation can not be efficiently evaluated due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide answers to the above questions, like its vitamin content, financial position of people and the farmers, only then can the recommendation can be evaluated to decide whether it will have the desired outcome or not.

Votes
Average: 5.5 (3 votes)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 387, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
... the new breed of millet will not help. the government can be successful in efficie...
^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, may, so, then, as to, for example, for instance, in conclusion

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.9520958084 178% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2598.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 559.0 441.139720559 127% => OK
Chars per words: 4.64758497317 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86242540663 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65548307031 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.386404293381 0.468620217663 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 817.2 705.55239521 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 8.0 1.67365269461 478% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.6125893073 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.25 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2916666667 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.125 5.70786347227 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => 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: 0.386900850402 0.218282227539 177% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129614921859 0.0743258471296 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0901180597723 0.0701772020484 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.238543691995 0.128457276422 186% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0891719929246 0.0628817314937 142% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.99 12.5979740519 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.32 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.

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: 22 15
No. of Words: 559 350
No. of Characters: 2531 1500
No. of Different Words: 207 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.862 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.528 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.6 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 162 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.409 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.364 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.682 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.512 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.08 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5