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 author of the argument has cited that people are deficient in vitamin A in the impoverished nation of Tagus and to surmount it an international development organization has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. The author claims that people will switch to this new breed and will be cured. The author's argument will look convincing at first glance. However, critical analysis of justification provided by the author has highlighted many questions. Therefore, the premises in its current form are not cogent and are based on unwarranted assumptions.
On the first facet, the author has mentioned that the government will provide subsidies to farmers for farming new variety of millet. However, the author has not provided any evidence for that. Moreover, it raises a question, how much subsidies will the farmer receive? If the cost of new variety of millet is $100 more per kg and farmers are receiving a subsidy for only $5 then they will be reluctant in growing new millet. And even if they grow millet than to compensate for the cost they will increase the price of the millet and therefore people will be reluctant to buy.
Moreover, the author has not provided any evidence or report on the new variety of millet. It raises a question, whether new millet is enough for the people to recover from vitamin A deficiency? If a new millet is not enough for the recovery of vitamin A deficiency then all the efforts will be in vain. Additionally, the author has not provided the reports for, how many people are affected by vitamin A deficiency? If the number of people is less then breeding a new variety of millet is not lucrative. And they can switch to other source of vitamin A which is more cheaper.
Additionally, the author has mentioned that the government should do everything to promote the new type of millet. But, the author has himself mentioned the impoverished nation of Tagus. It raises a question, is the government of Tagus is in condition to promote the new millet and give subsidies to farmers as well? If the government is not having enough funds to promote then the sale of the millet will not increase and people will not trust on new millet as the government itself is not promoting it. Moreover, the author has neglected the fact, Whether people can switch to other sources of vitamin A which is more cheaper than new millet? If they can easily substitue it than it will be more cheaper and usefu
In the crux, the author's argument is based on unsubstantiated assumptions. The author should have reinforced his argument with evidence to make it more convincing. Thereby, rendering the argument indefensible.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK, need to argue:
Since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt the new variety.
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
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: 24 15
No. of Words: 456 350
No. of Characters: 2151 1500
No. of Different Words: 167 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.621 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.717 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.677 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 169 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.132 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.353 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.526 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.112 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 313, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...o this new breed and will be cured. The authors argument will look convincing at first ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 231, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...at. Moreover, it raises a question, how much subsidies will the farmer receive? If t...
^^^^
Line 3, column 370, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...farmers are receiving a subsidy for only then they will be reluctant in growing n...
^^
Line 5, column 322, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...forts will be in vain. Additionally, the author has not provided the reports for,...
^^
Line 5, column 451, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[2]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...ciency? If the number of people is less then breeding a new variety of millet is not...
^^^^
Line 5, column 565, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'cheaper' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: cheaper
...h to other source of vitamin A which is more cheaper. Additionally, the author has mentio...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 616, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'cheaper' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: cheaper
... to other sources of vitamin A which is more cheaper than new millet? If they can easily sub...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 694, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'cheaper' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: cheaper
...can easily substitue it than it will be more cheaper and usefu In the crux, the authors a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 18, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...e cheaper and usefu In the crux, the authors argument is based on unsubstantiated as...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, look, moreover, so, then, therefore, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2203.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 455.0 441.139720559 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84175824176 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61852021839 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76038706466 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.367032967033 0.468620217663 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 696.6 705.55239521 99% => 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: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.255649688 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.7916666667 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9583333333 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.75 5.70786347227 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 5.25449101796 171% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.474759243063 0.218282227539 217% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.152450247418 0.0743258471296 205% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.122523081858 0.0701772020484 175% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.272670801589 0.128457276422 212% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.132288086558 0.0628817314937 210% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 14.3799401198 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.79 12.5979740519 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.27 8.32208582834 87% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.