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.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
An international development organization has come up with a recommendation to grow millet that have been engineered in such a way that they are rich in vitamin A. This has been done so as to address the needs of an impoverished country known as Tagus. The arguer provides evidence to suggest that these millet seeds will have a positive impact in Tagus and will help the people overcome their vitamin A deficiency. The evidence seems compelling during the first reading. But a closer look unearths a few unaccounted assumptions which could cast doubt on the arguers recommendation.
Firstly, what aspects of farming will the subsidies, as mentioned in the passage cover? Will there be subsidies only for buying the newly engineered millet seeds or for other agricultural aspects as well? It is possible that these new kind of seeds will require additional effort in terms of farming equipment's for harvesting them. Moreover, the arguer fails to mention the organization that will be providing these subsidies and how reliable the organization is. And lastly, the arguer fails to mention the duration for which these subsidies will be provided for the farmers.
Secondly, the arguer mentions that the seeds of millet are newly engineered seeds. This calls into question the reliability of the millet seeds itself. Since these seeds have not been tried in the natural environment. What assurance can the arguer give that these seeds will grow into fully mature plants at the first go? Moreover, it seems that these seeds have only been lab tested. Therefore, the second question. Does it retain the vitamin A content in the natural environmental setting as well? If not, then the discovery of these new seed would be a complete waste of resources.
Lastly, the author predicts that the citizens of Tagus will readily adopt the new millet type since millet is already the staple food for the residents of Tagus. The author fails to consider the possibility that seeds like these also have several types to it. Therefore, it cannot be categorically stated if this new type of millet will be adopted by the citizens of Tagus. What if the citizens of Tagus feel that there is a difference in the taste or other aspects of this new millet? This could mean that the residents of Tagus will go back to the millet seeds that they originally consumed. This would mean that the new millet seeds could be a failure.
In sum, it is difficult to categorically verify if the newly engineered millet seeds would be a success in Tagus. There are several unstated assumptions that could cast doubt on the final outcome. And until these unstated assumptions are attended to by the arguer, the reliability of the arguer's claim is capricious.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 459 350
No. of Characters: 2223 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.629 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.843 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.632 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 142 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 104 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.654 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.636 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.731 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.291 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.492 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 184, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...e rich in vitamin A. This has been done so as to address the needs of an impoverished co...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 560, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
...sumptions which could cast doubt on the arguers recommendation. Firstly, what aspect...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 153, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...reliability of the millet seeds itself. Since these seeds have not been tried in the ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, lastly, look, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, as to, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2275.0 2260.96107784 101% => OK
No of words: 459.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95642701525 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62863751936 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69073147743 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.43137254902 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 709.2 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.2582174429 57.8364921388 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 84.2592592593 119.503703932 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 23.324526521 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.22222222222 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.37595827191 0.218282227539 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109110019288 0.0743258471296 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0848594221081 0.0701772020484 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.209683034797 0.128457276422 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0856198446321 0.0628817314937 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 14.3799401198 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 48.3550499002 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.19 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.61 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.