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 recommendation from an international development organization to the government of Tagus for farming a newly engineered variety of millet is based on several claims that, while seem plausible prima facie, need to be investigated more rigorously. In order for the recommendation to be evaluated properly, three questions detailed below must be answered.
To begin with, the organization claims that the new millet variety is high in vitamin A. What exactly is the amount of vitamin A in it? Is it high enough to contribute at least some significant percentage of the recommended daily intake of vitamin A for an individual? Is it high enough to combat the deficiency among the people? It may well be that only consumption of the new millet variety does not do enough to overcome the vitamin A deficiency, in which case, additional measures must be explored. To fortify the validity of recommending the new variety as a generic cure, evidence must be provided, perhaps in the form of a scientific study that studies the efficacy of the variety in ameliorating the vitamin A deficiency.
Further, the organization claims that subsidies will be paid to farmers to encourage farming of the new variety. It is categorically assumed, however, that this will be a good enough incentive. What if farmers are wary of replacing the conventional varieties with a novel, unfamiliar, genetically engineered one? Is there evidence stating that the new breed proves to be a good return on the farmer's investment? Will subsidies cover all or at least most costs involved in farming - such as fertilizers, pesticides, water? Unless cultivating the new variety at subsidized rates is proven to be at least as cost effective as the varieties prevalent currently, it will be a tough sell to the farmers.
Finally, the organization asserts that since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will purchase the new variety willingly. Is this a conclusion drawn from surveys conducted in Tagus, or an optimistic blanket statement? Have surveys been conducted recently in Tagus, among a sufficiently large slice of the population representative of their society, from which it can safely be inferred that they are generally accepting of the new variety? Since it is stated that Tagus is an impoverished nation, is the new variety affordable to the general populace? Even if it is, it may well be that they have a prejudice towards genetically modified crops. In that case, no matter how hard the government promotes and subsidizes the new variety, it has little chance of being adopted widely. To clarify on these aspects of the proposal, solid evidence is needed that answers the questions outlined above.
In conclusion, while the recommendation for the new and allegedly improved breed of millet to be farmed and sold in Tagus seems reasonable, it leaves much room for doubt as many questions have been left unanswered. Reliable evidence must be provided that provides answers to these questions raised above, before the recommendation can be properly evaluated and followed through.
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: 22 15
No. of Words: 501 350
No. of Characters: 2517 1500
No. of Different Words: 239 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.731 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.024 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.971 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 185 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 151 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 75 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.773 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.022 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.308 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.524 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 393, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'farmers'' or 'farmer's'?
Suggestion: farmers'; farmer's
...breed proves to be a good return on the farmers investment? Will subsidies cover all or...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, may, so, well, while, at least, in conclusion, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2584.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 501.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15768463074 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73107062784 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05242990032 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.491017964072 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 846.0 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.3934286506 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.347826087 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7826086957 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.17391304348 5.70786347227 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.421286285156 0.218282227539 193% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.120785529787 0.0743258471296 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0727119954549 0.0701772020484 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.221502686802 0.128457276422 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.044230799856 0.0628817314937 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 98.500998004 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => 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.