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.
There are several questions need to be answered before making this recommendation: the Tagus should do everything it can to promote this new type of millet.
First, it is mentioned that growing the new type of millet will require farmers' adoption, which means the farmer will have to change the millet they grew before to the new type. However, the original type of millet is a staple food in Tagus, so the adoption might result to the deficiency of the staple food, which might be a more serious problem than the shortage of the vitamin A. Therefore, it requires further examination on how much decrease of staple food if the new type of millet is adopted. Only by answering this question, can we have a further understanding about the impact that the adoption will have. Then, a more sophisticated recommendation can be discussed based on the accurate understanding of the change.
Second, the subsidy is involved to motivate the farmers' adoption. However, it is unclear what is the estimated total amount of subsidy that will be required to grow sufficient new type of millet. Then it is also in question that is this amount fair to invest, or actually it is even more effective to use the amount of subsidy to purchase vitamin A directly? It will require a detailed amount of the subsidy, so that the government can compare the effectiveness of investing in the new millet or importing vitamin A directly.
Third, besides of subsidy, it lacks information about any other techniques that might need to be implemented to grow the new millet. Though the farmers are familiar with the original millet, it is not guaranteed that no new techniques are required to grow the new type. Therefore, further information on other sides of changes needed, such as technology, water resource, or even the soil types etc, will need to be revealed, so that a more comprehensive comparison can be made.
In conclusion, the lack of information relating to the change that will happen due to the adoption of new millet, such as potential decrease of the original staple food, the total amount of the subsidy, as well as any other relevant investment: technology, water resource, makes it difficult to reach the recommendation that the government shall support the initiative of growing new millet. Other options can also be considered, such as buying vitamin A directly. Therefore, it is crucial to dig into further details, so the government can compare different solutions to make a proper decision.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 15 15
No. of Words: 419 350
No. of Characters: 2016 1500
No. of Different Words: 168 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.524 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.811 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.762 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.933 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.424 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.382 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.61 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.133 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 49, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'farmers'' or 'farmer's'?
Suggestion: farmers'; farmer's
...the subsidy is involved to motivate the farmers adoption. However, it is unclear what i...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, besides, first, however, if, second, so, then, therefore, third, well, in conclusion, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2081.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 419.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.96658711217 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52432199235 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86429592323 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.424821002387 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 671.4 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.4317566748 57.8364921388 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.0625 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1875 23.324526521 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5625 5.70786347227 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.319216175709 0.218282227539 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121684198393 0.0743258471296 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0701199840984 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.203728240872 0.128457276422 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0471672995869 0.0628817314937 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => 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: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.