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 statement rests on many assumptions which if had been stated clearly might have aided to the cogency of the statement.
The foremost flaw that comes is the credibility of this international development organization. It states that the new bread of millet is high in vitamin A but gives no proof regarding it's authenticity. It might be possible that this organisation, just for the sake of incurring a high profit might have falsely labeled the millet as vitamin A rich. Where in fact the millet might be the same as the normal ones.
Also the assumption that farmers of Tagus grow millet is unsupported. There's no mention of this fact, it might be possible that the millet that people of Tagus take in their diet have been imported from a different place. As the climate of Tagus may be not be favorable for growing the new breed of millet or the breed of millet in the first case.
The argument also rests on the fact that people of Tagus will readily adopt the new breed of millet. Which might not be true, the demographics of Tagus as compared to the place where this organisation tested the millet might not have anything common in them. Resulting into an unfavorable response of the people of Tagus towards this new bread of millet.
Keeping the onus of promotion of the new bread millet on the government might not be completely justified. There might be better alternatives that the government could undertake to combat the vitamin A deficiency. Supplying people with vitamin A medications or some other enriched source of vitamin A which might not be as costly as the new bread millet. This will result in the saving of government revenue as they won't have the burden of giving the subsidies. And that saved amount could be utilized for spreading the awareness about the ongoing deficiency so that people themselves can start acting.
If all the above assumptions are recompiled into the argument, it will aid to its defense. Making the argument sound and with less number of flaws.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 47, Rule ID: IF_IS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...atement rests on many assumptions which if had been stated clearly might have aide...
^^
Line 3, column 155, Rule ID: A_BUT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'a bit'?
Suggestion: A bit
... new bread of millet is high in vitamin A but gives no proof regarding its authentici...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...ight be the same as the normal ones. Also the assumption that farmers of Tagus gr...
^^^^
Line 5, column 71, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: There's
...rs of Tagus grow millet is unsupported. Theres no mention of this fact, it might be po...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 245, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'A medication' or simply 'medications'?
Suggestion: A medication; Medications
...ficiency. Supplying people with vitamin A medications or some other enriched source of vitami...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'in fact']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.25 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.152173913043 0.15541462614 98% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0869565217391 0.0836205057962 104% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0353260869565 0.0520304965353 68% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0271739130435 0.0272364105082 100% => OK
Prepositions: 0.157608695652 0.125424944231 126% => OK
Participles: 0.0516304347826 0.0416121511921 124% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.6318548139 2.79052419416 94% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0108695652174 0.026700313972 41% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.138586956522 0.113004496875 123% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0461956521739 0.0255425247493 181% => Less modal verbs wanted (like 'must , shall , will , should , would , can , could , may , and might').
WH_determiners: 0.0163043478261 0.0127820249294 128% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2004.0 2731.13054187 73% => OK
No of words: 346.0 446.07635468 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.79190751445 6.12365571057 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.57801047555 94% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.306358381503 0.378187486979 81% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.208092485549 0.287650121315 72% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.14450867052 0.208842608468 69% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.109826589595 0.135150697306 81% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6318548139 2.79052419416 94% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 207.018472906 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.471098265896 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 48.2759028028 52.1807786196 93% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 19.2222222222 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 29.1227712017 57.7814097925 50% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.333333333 141.986410481 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2222222222 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.5 0.724660767414 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 40.0314707771 51.9672348444 77% => OK
Elegance: 2.13924050633 1.8405768891 116% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.449644705331 0.441005458295 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.141467779276 0.135418324435 104% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0790940024484 0.0829849096947 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.671304579787 0.58762219726 114% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.110825246953 0.147661913831 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.210866933929 0.193483328276 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.091646098346 0.0970749176394 94% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.486532653501 0.42659136922 114% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.166232318206 0.0774707102158 215% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.287108049472 0.312017818177 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.133558096847 0.0698173142475 191% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.