The recommendation from an international organization put forward an improvised version of millet to combat Vitamin A deficiency in the impoverished nation of Tagus. The organization assumes that since millet being the staple food of the locales, it can be enforced easily in the food market alongside collaborating with its government to issue subsidies for farmers farming the new variety. Nevertheless, the recommendation itself is glutted with false assumptions which needs to be addressed before endorsing the new product for the native people.
Firstly, the organization has preemptive ideas for the nation based on its staple food. Though it is highly appreciable, the consequences from such new genetically modified seeds may have everlasting side effects for the indigenous people. What if the new variety is high in composition of gluten or proteins? It failed to consider the allergens that may have devastating effects for the citizens. Furthermore, there is no certainty about the people's choice of food. As there may be a difference in the taste for the new food, people may hesitate to buy them and eventually depend upon other resources for food. Consequentially, it may perhaps lead to further malnourishment. Hence, negligence of these considerations from the international body may in turn lead to unprecedented health implications.
Further, the assurance of subsidies from the government from a destitute nation like Tagus is not reliable. Even if the government strive harder for distributing funds to make the nation enriched with healthy option, there is no guarantee that the farmers may cultivate the new seed. Perhaps, they may rely more on water resources or a new technique that supplants the already existing technique in farming may be required for cultivation. As a result, the cost incurred on the farmers outweigh the subsidies delivered to them. However, if the government takes sole responsibility in redressal for such issues of farmers, then the recommendation for the new variety cultivation is plausible from the farmer's perspective.
Finally, there is another important pontification to be considered. If the government increased the taxes imposed on people in order to compensate for the bestowed subsidies, then the already suffering nation may be inclined towards a more adverse future economically. Therefore, with no proper contract between the government and the organization to take up the venture of promoting a new variety may not strengthen the people, rather it may result in far more catastrophic effect both financially and economically.
To conclude, in case the international organization delineated these unanswered fallacies in the recommendation, then the association's motive towards the people of Tagus may hold water. However, there is not point in implementing a new variety of food without addressing these with valid evidences.
- Manned space flight is costly and dangerous Moreover the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men an 60
- Claim The emergence of the online blogosphere and social media has significantly weakened the quality of political discourse in the United States Reason When anyone can publish political opinions easily standards for covering news and political t 58
- The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner quot Over the past two years the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically Many Ce 58
- Demand for gas and oil is increasing and so finding new sources in remote and untouched areas is a necessity Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages 95
- Some people believe that increasing violence in the media is the cause of increasing violence in our society especially among children Others believe that children s peer groups and parental role models are a much more powerful influence on children s beh 50
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 446 350
No. of Characters: 2403 1500
No. of Different Words: 220 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.596 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.388 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.225 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 183 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 144 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 105 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 87 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.238 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.462 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.857 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.318 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.087 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 632, Rule ID: MIGHT_PERHAPS[1]
Message: Use simply 'may', 'perhaps'.
Suggestion: may; perhaps
...resources for food. Consequentially, it may perhaps lead to further malnourishment. Hence, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 700, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'farmers'' or 'farmer's'?
Suggestion: farmers'; farmer's
...riety cultivation is plausible from the farmers perspective. Finally, there is another...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, then, therefore, as for, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2452.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 446.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.49775784753 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5955099915 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30552896642 2.78398813304 119% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508968609865 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 783.0 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.0234684872 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.761904762 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2380952381 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.80952380952 5.70786347227 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.299288095202 0.218282227539 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0879517860765 0.0743258471296 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.063064735118 0.0701772020484 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.170734163237 0.128457276422 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0746107232508 0.0628817314937 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.3550499002 69% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.5979740519 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.32 8.32208582834 112% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 98.500998004 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.