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 international development organization's claim that the new breed of engineered millet can effectively combat vitamin A deficiency problem in the Tagus is rife with incomplete assumptions and dubious inferences. Without further information on suitability, adaptability and affordability of the new variety, it is too quick to put the recommendation into effect.
Firstly, the organization fails to provide comparative data on the difference of vitamin A content of the indigenous breed of the Tagus and the new engineered breed. How was the assessment of vitamin A carried out? Was this new breed helpful in other regions to alleviate a similar problem? Answers to these questions are very pivotal for analyzing the organization's claim. Moreover, the digestibility of the new breed and absorption of its vitamin A by the human system should also be considered.
Secondly, the organization depicts no information on the growth and suitability of the new breed in the Tagus. It is likely that the new breed may not be viable in the climatic and edaphic conditions of Tagus. The scientific field trial in the millet growing season across various location is primarily important before distributing seeds to the farmer.
Thirdly, the organization claims that farmers will readily adopt the new breed. However, the local breed, which has been cultivated for a long period, may not be given up by the farmers. People may be wary about the preservation of their indigenous genetic resources. If farmers show reluctance in the adoption, the entire effort may prove futile.
Fourthly, it is mentioned that the cost of seed is high and subsidy will be paid to the farmers. The organization doesn't reveal whether the subsidy plan is partial or full. As the people are already impoverished, it is obvious to show reluctance in adoption without the clear mention of the full support. Organization's claim may prove counterintuitive if it fails to address this issue.
Fifthly, the organization shows no data on the yield and marketability of the new breed. If it yields low and its product fails to meet the market quality, the scheme might suffer a failure. Low yield and poor consumer preference can impede the farmers from adding to family income from millet farming.
Therefore, without further information and pragmatic evidence, the organization's argument is incomplete and can't be as such recommended for implementation.
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: 70 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 387 350
No. of Characters: 1993 1500
No. of Different Words: 205 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.435 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.15 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.089 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 67 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.591 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.184 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.31 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.585 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.057 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 7 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 115, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...e paid to the farmers. The organization doesnt reveal whether the subsidy plan is part...
^^^^^^
Line 13, column 68, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'organizations'' or 'organization's'?
Suggestion: organizations'; organization's
...information and pragmatic evidence, the organizations argument is incomplete and cant be as s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 109, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...rganizations argument is incomplete and cant be as such recommended for implementati...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2046.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 386.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30051813472 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43248042346 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13496873037 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.525906735751 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 643.5 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.359018737 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.0 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5454545455 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.63636363636 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.342123629948 0.218282227539 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0928089049269 0.0743258471296 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0711779140922 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.152170959426 0.128457276422 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0757339152092 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.16 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.94 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.