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.
Nutrition deficiency in an entire nation is indeed a matter of concern and should be addressed. While the method used in the argument does sound plausible there are a number of questions that need to be answered before a mass production and adaptation of this new type of millet can be considered.
While it is clearly mentioned that the newly engineered millet possesses high contents of vitamin A, there is no mention regarding its bio-availability. A bio-availability of a nutrition in a food product is how readily the body can accept and inherit that nutrition. Bio-availability can be affected by a lot of things, including how the food is cooked. So, even if there is high volume of Vitamin A in this new crop, the bio-availability could be very low, rendering it ineffective in curing the deficiency. However, if the vitamin A is readily bio-available in the crop after the usual cooking method, this approach seems feasible.
While this new type does provide an increase in vitamin A content, the contents of other nutrients shouldn't be significant altered, else, there is a possibility of a new kind of deficiency among the people of Tagus.
The increased seed pricing is a topic of concern. Is the government financially ready to subsidize all the farmers willing to grow the newly engineered millet? Are there mechanisms in place to make sure that only the farmers growing this new type of crop get the subsidiaries and are these mechanisms trusted? These are a few questions related to the subsidiaries that need to be answered before promoting the new type of millet.
Additionally, because Millet is a staple food of Tagus, the people there are likely used to it being in a particular way in terms of taste, texture, etc. So, for the people to readily adapt to this new type, the development organization needs to make sure that all the important aspects of the food remain the same while ensuring greater quantities of vitamin A.
If the crop is well tested and all the above questions are addressed, this approach to deal with the lack of vitamin A could prove successful.
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: 14 15
No. of Words: 358 350
No. of Characters: 1698 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.35 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.743 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.929 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 117 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 90 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 58 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.571 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.048 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.348 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.651 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 100, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: shouldn't
...ontent, the contents of other nutrients shouldnt be significant altered, else, there is ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, regarding, so, well, while, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1758.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 357.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.9243697479 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34677393335 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99574822875 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.478991596639 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 565.2 705.55239521 80% => 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: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => 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: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.7660585712 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.2 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.2 5.70786347227 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.410877914244 0.218282227539 188% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.125933905163 0.0743258471296 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0764598980206 0.0701772020484 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.204373496823 0.128457276422 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0745809789763 0.0628817314937 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.