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 claims that introducing the new type of millet which is high in Vitamin A shall combat their deficiency in Vitamin A. In order to support this claim, they have stated that the farmers will be paid subsidies for farming the new variety and the government shall do everything to promote it. In order to evaluate the recommendation made, it is necessary to look into the unstated assumptions that the argument depends on.
Firstly, will the new type of millet grow on the native soil? For example, it is possible that the millet seeds which are high in Vitamin A might not grow properly in the native soil. Maybe when they genetically modified the seed they did not check whether it would grow in the soil. Soil differs from place to place. Only when it grow in their soil, will they be able to harvest the millet and consume it. If this is true, then the argument is faulty.
Secondly, Are the subsidies given by the government enough for the farmers to start farming with the new type of millet? For instance, it is possible that the cost of farming the new type of millet is more than the subsidies given by the government, then, it is possible that the farmers shall not accept the offer and prefer farming with the old type of millet. Then the recommendation is not valid. In such case, the argument is faulty.
It is possible that the people of Tagus had figured out a cheaper way to combat their vitamin A deficiency. Maybe the farmers had changed their eating habits by eating other vegetables which are cheaper than the new type of millet and also rich in vitamin A. If this is true then the farmers will obviously not opt to farm the new millet, though the government is giving them subsidies. In such a case, the argument is faulty and unsound.
Thus, answering the above questions would would help us decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted results. This shall help us see whether the above recommendation is possible or not.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 352 350
No. of Characters: 1587 1500
No. of Different Words: 143 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.331 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.509 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.417 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 101 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 72 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 40 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 24 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.706 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.389 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.529 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.347 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.568 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.137 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 332, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'grows'?
Suggestion: grows
...ffers from place to place. Only when it grow in their soil, will they be able to har...
^^^^
Line 17, column 37, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: would
... Thus, answering the above questions would would help us decide whether the recommendati...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1642.0 2260.96107784 73% => OK
No of words: 352.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.66477272727 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33147354134 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4649335628 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 204.123752495 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.423295454545 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 500.4 705.55239521 71% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.0870249846 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.4210526316 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5263157895 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05263157895 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.340647320708 0.218282227539 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102233008857 0.0743258471296 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0970800086313 0.0701772020484 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183478755519 0.128457276422 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.08748056041 0.0628817314937 139% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.8 14.3799401198 68% => 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: 9.75 12.5979740519 77% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.95 8.32208582834 84% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 98.500998004 55% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.