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 argument states that to combat the vitamin A deficiency among the people in the nation of Tagus, their farmers are being encouraged to produce a new breed of millet which is rich in vitamin A. Since the people of Tagus consider millet as a staple in their diet, it will not be a problem adopting the new breed of millet and thus, it will eliminate the vitamin A deficiency among the citizens. A few questions need to be answered regarding this new breed of millet to evaluate its feasibility and effectiveness in the said nation.
Firstly, it is mentioned in the argument that the nation of Tagus is impoverished. Which means, it is a poor nation where people need to work hard to make ends meet. So, just stating that subsidies will be given to farmers is kind of vague because it is not told how much more costly the seed is. If the cost is considerably higher, it will be a situation of uncertainty because of the following reason. It is stated in the argument that the international development organisation has developed the seed. But the government of Tagus will be the one to pay the subsidies to the farmers to cultivate them. Since it is already in a weak economic state, providing considerable amount of funds for this cause would not be very easy.
In addition to the above, the seed might require additional care from the farmer due to its new composition and this might again require more finance from the side of the farmer. Also, if the farmers are not directly receiving the subsidies and they come through an officer, there is a chance that he takes some commission from that fund and gives the remaining to the farmers. So, the argument should clearly state where the subsidies are coming from, will they directly go to the farmers or not, how much more will the new seed cost and how much costlier will the cultivating and harvesting the new seed prove to be.
This is one side of the coin, the producing. The other side, the consumption will also raise a few issues. Firstly, since it is costing more for producing the millet, will it be sold at a higher price? The answer would most probably be a yes. If so, the public will be very skeptical about buying it given their current condition. Thus there will be very less people who will be consuming the new breed of millet and the move will have failed.
Another issue is that, will the new breed of millet taste the same and will it have any side effects? Whatever the food may be, if it has to be a staple, it should have minimum taste. Whether the additional component in the seed alter the taste isn't told in the question, so based on that, we can evaluate how ubiquitous its use in Tagus will be. Another important thing is the side effects of vitamin A rich millet. Nothing about the medical tests with the new food is mentioned in the argument. It would only worsen the situation if it has any deleterious effects on the consumers.
All in all, more information regarding the cost of buying the seed, cultivating the plant, the help provided to the farmers, the medical diagnosis of the food and the feasibility of having a market for it has to be given in order to properly evaluate the possibility of it eradicating the vitamin A deficiency among the people in the nation of Tagus.
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: 25 15
No. of Words: 592 350
No. of Characters: 2616 1500
No. of Different Words: 233 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.933 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.419 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.483 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 158 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.68 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.411 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.68 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.281 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.507 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.083 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 332, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...uying it given their current condition. Thus there will be very less people who will...
^^^^
Line 13, column 356, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...rent condition. Thus there will be very less people who will be consuming the new br...
^^^^
Line 17, column 246, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...l component in the seed alter the taste isnt told in the question, so based on that,...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, may, regarding, so, thus, as to, in addition, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 28.0 12.9520958084 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2699.0 2260.96107784 119% => OK
No of words: 591.0 441.139720559 134% => OK
Chars per words: 4.5668358714 5.12650576532 89% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.93056706295 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52352628844 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.419627749577 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 857.7 705.55239521 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.7007424815 57.8364921388 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.807692308 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7307692308 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.23076923077 5.70786347227 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.466504201689 0.218282227539 214% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.128456591005 0.0743258471296 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0996874113173 0.0701772020484 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.25770429829 0.128457276422 201% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103120169359 0.0628817314937 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.52 12.5979740519 76% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.56 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.