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.
The author in the above passage concludes that the government of Tagus should go to any extent to promote the new type of millet (rich in vitamin A)-since it is believed to replenish the vitamin A deficiency of the common mass. However, in this pursuit, the author has neglected a few important considerations and based his conclusion on a few weak assumptions, three of which has been addressed below. This short communication tries to address the hidden flaws in the argument and attempts to resolve it on the basis of a few evidences.
Firstly, the author assumes that the new breed of millet which is high in vitamin A is an improved substitute of the previously existing version of millet that the individuals of Tagus used to consume. the author, although, pays attention to the fact that the new breed is high in vitamin A, fails to consider the fact that it may be lacking in other areas as well. In case of genetic engineering, it is commonly noticed that the newer version of seeds, although high in value in terms of a particular nutrient, lacks the other components. It may be possible that although the new breed of millet replenishes vitamin A among the citizens, it may cause a deficiency of other nutrients like vitamin B, iron, and so on. Thus, the author must take into account the composition of minerals in the newer breed before pitching it to be grown in large quantities.
Secondly, the author assumes that since millet is already a staple food of Tagus people, they would readily adopt the new variety. In saying so, he simply ignores the fact that different people have different tastes and preferences. Although similar as a product, the newer breed may have a different taste (say for example high saltiness) and odor which may not be welcome by the population. It is also possible that this newer breed may have negative health impacts, like allergies, in a particular cohort of people of this area. These side effects would lead to repulsion of people against this newer breed.
Thirdly, the author innocently assumes that the government shall rightfully intervene to support the cost bearing fo the farmers. What he ignores is the fact that Tagus is an impoverished nation. It implies the country being a developing or underdeveloped one. In most cases, such countries are characterised by a poor economy, lack of government funds, corrupt government officials and so on. In such cases, although promised, the government shall fail to provided the required subsidies after sometime. Once the policy is implemented, farmers shall be forced to grow newer breed of millet with adequate support from the government. This shall result in huge burden on farmers and resultant low production of crops, finally leading to food crisis. Thus the author must look into a more rigid and comprehensive policy from the government before being optimistic about this idea.
In conclusion, it is important to consider that although the newer breed aims to solve a major health issue, its implementation may have unwanted repercussion effects. Thus, the author must seek more evidence of this policy before he goes on to propagate this idea. A little bit of investigation and policy planning would help to address the issue in a more holistic way.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 550 350
No. of Characters: 2647 1500
No. of Different Words: 255 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.843 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.813 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.688 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 185 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.604 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.294 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.514 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.093 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 203, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...e individuals of Tagus used to consume. the author, although, pays attention to the...
^^^
Line 7, column 750, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... crops, finally leading to food crisis. Thus the author must look into a more rigid ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 269, Rule ID: LITTLE_BIT[1]
Message: Reduce redundancy by using 'little' or 'bit'.
Suggestion: little; bit
...re he goes on to propagate this idea. A little bit of investigation and policy planning wo...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, well, for example, in conclusion, in most cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 87.0 55.5748502994 157% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2722.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 550.0 441.139720559 125% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94909090909 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84273464058 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75938428873 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 204.123752495 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476363636364 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 853.2 705.55239521 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.4324316606 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.416666667 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9166666667 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.08333333333 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.306800260364 0.218282227539 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0819526521758 0.0743258471296 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0759112755404 0.0701772020484 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155757255098 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0696854279675 0.0628817314937 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 98.500998004 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.