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.
Evidently that the following argument is flawed for several reasons. The key problem is the fact of the Tagus people’s poverty, but promoting the new millet variety demands much investments. It can be concluded that most of population suffering from vitamin A deficiency won’t be able to afford this type of goods.
Argument directly says that new seeds costs more and furthermore government is going to pay subsidies to farmers. Likely that these nuances will result in higher cost of final product. Eventually, nobody can assure that Tagus people could buy the new sort of millet even the old one is a staple food. Had the argument provide information regarding incomes in Tagus to assess the probability that population could substitute the old millet with the new one. Even then, if any discounts will be offered that would increase chances for changes in people’s nutrition.
The last sentence of argument implies investments in promoting which is also can affect the final cost of millet. Analogically to the previous paragraph, some information about material condition of Tagus population should be presented.
Finally, the argument claims without warrant that the new variety of millet is similar to the old one. So even if we assume that some of their physical properties like taste would be identical that people will agree to consume the new millet, the argument is still lacking. It does not provide guarantees that the new variety of millet will settle down in Tagus conditions in general. Argument should give some data about necessary conditions and existing ones for planting new sort of millet to be sure that local farmers will manage to farmer this plant.
Summarizing the above, it was presented that the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, so it fails to make a convincing case that vitamin A deficiency of Tagus population will be combated.
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: 15 15
No. of Words: 308 350
No. of Characters: 1544 1500
No. of Different Words: 163 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.189 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.013 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.606 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 115 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 88 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.533 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.92 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.733 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.359 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.531 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.067 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 179, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...romoting the new millet variety demands much investments. It can be concluded that m...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, furthermore, if, regarding, so, still, then, in general, sort of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1596.0 2260.96107784 71% => OK
No of words: 307.0 441.139720559 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1986970684 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75042425439 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 204.123752495 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.534201954397 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 501.3 705.55239521 71% => 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: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.6414010494 57.8364921388 60% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 106.4 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4666666667 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6 5.70786347227 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
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: 0.35129872659 0.218282227539 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.117965038472 0.0743258471296 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0456978792656 0.0701772020484 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.18797338667 0.128457276422 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.069784502654 0.0628817314937 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.1 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.