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 prompt presents that the author of the passage has urged the government of Tagus to promote the cultivation of a crop (Millet) of modified variety. The author has reached the conclusion assuming that being a staple in Tagus, people will face no problem familiarizing with the crop and as this crop is costlier and farmers are getting paid for it, they will likely to produce them. However, the following questions need to be answered for this to be a valid conclusion.
First of all, the author is assuming that the vitamin A deficiency is a critical problem in Tagus. There is no information about what percentage of people of Tagus are facing this problem. All that can be gathered from the prompt is that there are people who is suffering from this problem. For instance, the people that are currently deficient of vitamin-A could constitute 1% or 5 % or even 50%. So, if the case is such that the people are very low in number, then to spend the national resources on this matter will not be wise.
Secondly, can the result about the efficacy of the new breed of millet that is "rich in vitamin-A" be readily trusted? This is a new invention and the power of the new breed is yet to be tested. Without checking up on that, would it be wise to invest the resources in its production? Perhaps, it is not as effective as it was thought to be. Then this would result in spending additional money that is simply wasted. So, the statement cannot hold water if the new breed is ultimately ineffective.
Then, the author is assuming that, as people are already eating this crop as it is a staple food there, there should be no problem when a new breed is introduced. This is true that they will not strongly oppose it but what is the guarantee here that they will replace the previous Millet for the new ones? What if previous one tested better? Again, the efficacy still needs to be proven, so why would people choose a bitter tasting one over a good tasting crop? If this is true, then there is less likely chance for new Millet to be a success.
Lastly, the author very rapidly presumes that just because the farmers are getting paid for cultivating the new crop, they would do so. What are the chances that they will not use the money for some other purpose? There is low chance of government officials checking up on them. So, here the government is paying them a good amount of money, but they might be using it for some other purpose. For the government, it is just money down the drain. So, if this scenario holds merit, then the government would just be wasting its precious resources.
In light of the question, the argument that the author is trying to make, however stands faulty. If the questions above can be answered with appropriate research, then this may be a valid judgement.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 504 350
No. of Characters: 2224 1500
No. of Different Words: 209 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.738 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.413 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.358 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 97 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 64 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.128 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.63 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.265 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.505 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.084 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 448, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: low
...e case is such that the people are very low in number, then to spend the national resources o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 140, Rule ID: NEW_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'invention'.
Suggestion: invention
...n-A' be readily trusted? This is a new invention and the power of the new breed is yet t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, for instance, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 49.0 19.6327345309 250% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 28.8173652695 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2313.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 504.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.58928571429 5.12650576532 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47978672901 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.438492063492 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 705.6 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 39.327822729 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.6666666667 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6666666667 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.66666666667 5.70786347227 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.303969516042 0.218282227539 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0890058380769 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0641293999134 0.0701772020484 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.165690611491 0.128457276422 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0693912382697 0.0628817314937 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.5 14.3799401198 66% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 48.3550499002 145% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 12.197005988 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.34 12.5979740519 74% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.63 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.