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 author of the argument contends that the government of Tagus should do everything it can to promote a new type of millet, that has been proposed by an international development organization in response to a vitamin A deficiency among the people of the country. He or she uses as evidence to support his or her claims the fact that farmers will be paid subsidies for farming this new variety of millet and also that people will adopt it since it is already a staple food in Tagus. The reasoning of the argument is totally flawed, as it is based upon unsubstantiated assumptions.
First and foremost, the arguer wrongly assumes that the new breed of millet high in vitamin A is the only and most effective action that could be implemented by the aforementioned international organization, in order to fight vitamin A deficiency in Tagus. Perhaps, there are many other actions and options that the arguer totally ignores. For example, extreme weather conditions during the last year have devastated many plants and fields with cultivations rich in vitamin A, therefore a solution should be based on bolstering and protecting the current plantations rather than introducing a new method. In order to accept his or her validity, he or she should have stated that among all other potential choices studied, the introduction of this new breed of millet constitutes the safest measure. Moreover, the spokesperson too hastily concludes that although this new type of millet costs more, farmers will be paid subsidies for farming this new variety. We are given in indication of the actual subsidies that the farmers will be refunded and also if this measure would be prolific and safe. Nothing excludes that at the end, the cultivation of this new variety will make farmers suffer losses as their productivity in this new method is unproven. The author should have displayed accurate data and statistics about the amount of subsidies and also the effectiveness of the farming of this new breed of millet.
Additionally, the arguer fails to ensure us that people in Tagus will readily adopt the new variety. The fact that millet is already a staple food in Tagus constitutes a positive correlation rather than a casual connection. The author of the argument should have quoted specific statistics and detailed information in reference to the citizens of Tagus, in order to accept the effectiveness and validity of this concept. Furthermore, the incident that the government should do everything possible to promote this new type of millet does necessarily ensure the success of this method. Many other actions implemented by the government could possibly lead to positive results. For example, a pilot program that certain farmers will test the cultivation of this new variety and at the end observe if it actually yields or not. The arguer should have stated that among all other possible actions tested, the critical and most effective belongs to the government where they should do everything to promote this new type of millet.
The argument is weak since neither is the conclusion sound nor is the suggestion legitimate. Had there been substantial evidence, perhaps, the argument would have sounded more credible, but in its absence, it sounds indefensible.
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 535 350
No. of Characters: 2677 1500
No. of Different Words: 225 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.809 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.004 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.792 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 207 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 151 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.879 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.45 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.344 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.498 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 634, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...r actions implemented by the government could possibly lead to positive results. For example, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, furthermore, if, moreover, so, therefore, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 28.8173652695 167% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2739.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 535.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11962616822 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80937282943 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85982285748 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.431775700935 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 865.8 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.6871017075 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.95 119.503703932 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.75 23.324526521 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.05 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.436087517493 0.218282227539 200% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129612416401 0.0743258471296 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107059112834 0.0701772020484 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.254689040831 0.128457276422 198% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.155957054058 0.0628817314937 248% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.3799401198 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.