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.
At first glance, the statement regarding deficiency of Vitamin A among people of the Tagus is very conveying, however, the solution offered by the author is not complete. It lacks concrete evidence and hence leaves the room for alternate assumptions. The author has missed providing enough evidence that can affect the conclusion inadvertently.
Firstly, the author fails to mention the reason behind the deficiency of Vitamin A. His claim must contain the reason behind it. To bolster his argument he should present more statistical data regarding vitamin A deficiency among people. There might be the people who are using another food or fruits in order to get Vitamin A. Only the millet is not the source of Vitamin A. And hence author should need depth study of this serious matter.
Secondly, the question comes why only millet? There are lots of fruit and vegetables that have a sufficient amount of Vitamin A. The author mentioned that a new variety of millet seed cost more. So, it is obvious that it would affect people in purchasing seeds and cultivating them on the farm. These countries are already poor and impoverished. So, they could not afford the cost of new seed else they would purchase new crops that were cheap.
Thirdly, the author mentioned that the millet is already stapled in this country, people will readily adopt new variety but in this case, also the author fails to provide sufficient evidence. If you staple on something, it is not necessary that you could afford the new one of the same type at a high cost. As the cost of a new variety is higher, they may not afford it. Rather they could be stayed focused on what they already have or they could use a new strategy for uplifting the production of millet.
Although the solution provided by the author might be one of the possible causes to uplift the production of millet that would have sufficient Vitamin A, it is not the complete solution. There could be numerous alternate solutions for promulgating the production of millet. And there is no guarantee that by promoting the production of millet with new variety would eliminate the problem of deficiency of Vitamin A. With lack of profound analysis, supporting logic and comprehensive reasoning, the argument stands weak.
To recapitulate this, the author has made bold arguments without taking into account a number of facts and has concluded on the basis of various assumptions discussed above. To firmly conclude about this the author should come with multiple supporting evidence with statistical data and frequent evaluation
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 430 350
No. of Characters: 2099 1500
No. of Different Words: 207 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.554 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.881 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.565 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.195 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.319 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.579 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.115 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 118, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...etables that have a sufficient amount of Vitamin A. The author mentioned that a n...
^^
Line 13, column 372, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Rather,
...iety is higher, they may not afford it. Rather they could be stayed focused on what th...
^^^^^^
Line 17, column 405, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d eliminate the problem of deficiency of Vitamin A. With lack of profound analysi...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2164.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 430.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03255813953 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55372829156 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61987246768 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483720930233 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 672.3 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.2674288582 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.56 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.96 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.329975026614 0.218282227539 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0923372768475 0.0743258471296 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0702165149873 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161867042726 0.128457276422 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0726934269539 0.0628817314937 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.