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 claims that the new millet breed, apparently rich in vitamin A, will be readily adopted by the people for cultivation to eliminate the vitamin A deficiency within the people and government should start promoting this new millet. He presents this conclusion on the basis of various evidence presented in the text. The argument might seem valid in first glance, but after thoroughly analyzing, I believe the speaker needs to provide more explanation for the unwarranted assumptions that are holding the conclusion precariously.
First of all, the author assumes that the new breed of millet engineered by them in the lab will thrive in the fields of Tagus. The growth of a crop not only depends upon the availability of its seed but also various environmental factors such as condition of land, rainfall, presence of moth, etc. The crop field of Tagus might be so desiccated that production of even normal crops is difficult. Additionally, the rainfall in Tagus may be much scant that the quantity of which may not be sufficient for the seed to grow. Even if the land is good and rainfall is sufficient, the proliferation of crop eating insects, if prevalent in the surrounding, can result in cultivation of very less crops. Moreover, even if the author provides evidence of feasibility of crops cultivation in Tagus, the growth of the new formed millet cannot be guaranteed. Until the organization provides strong evidence by testing the crop in the Tagus field, the argument is likely to fall.
Secondly, he holds an unwarranted assumption that since people already eat more millet, they are likely to accept the new breed of millet. Perhaps the people of Tagus eat millet as a side food and majority of the people eat rice as their primary source of nutrition and the cultivation of rice is more important for them than the millet. Furthermore, the consumption of millet might be more in one reason of the country and much less in other parts which, if true, does not provide sufficient information about the millet being the staple food. The people there might even be skeptical about adopting new type of breeds in their field. If these are true, then the argument won't hold water.
Finally, another unjust assumption by the author is that providing subsidies for the cultivation of these new seeds will answer all the financial problems related to it. Also, he does not mention the type of subsidies. May be the assistance thought to be provided to the farmers are limited only to the purchase of the seed. The seed may probably require much more maintenance than the conventional millet seed and the cost of production is much more than the cost of purchase. If so, then the impoverished people will not be able to cultivate it and the prediction will be faulted. Moreover, if the new seed produces much less harvest in comparison to conventional millet, provided the same amount of seed for both condition, then the farmers won't be able to make more profit and they are likely to reject the seed. If this holds true, then the argument will definitely fail.
So to sum up, unless the unjustified assumptions are strengthen with more evidence, the recommendation by the organization will not succeed.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 547 350
No. of Characters: 2621 1500
No. of Different Words: 228 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.836 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.792 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.698 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 176 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.864 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.038 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.818 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.297 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.499 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.111 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 685, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun crops is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...ding, can result in cultivation of very less crops. Moreover, even if the author pro...
^^^^
Line 7, column 224, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[8]
Message: The proper name in singular (May) must be used with a third-person verb: 'is'.
Suggestion: is
... not mention the type of subsidies. May be the assistance thought to be provided t...
^^
Line 9, column 54, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'strengthened'.
Suggestion: strengthened
... unless the unjustified assumptions are strengthen with more evidence, the recommendation ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, finally, first, furthermore, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, such as, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 55.5748502994 131% => OK
Nominalization: 33.0 16.3942115768 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2683.0 2260.96107784 119% => OK
No of words: 545.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92293577982 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83169070408 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76140753995 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.445871559633 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 828.9 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 11.0 2.70958083832 406% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.361598255 57.8364921388 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.652173913 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6956521739 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.69565217391 5.70786347227 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
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: 0.403842889578 0.218282227539 185% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113374711351 0.0743258471296 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0895594286051 0.0701772020484 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.217878596421 0.128457276422 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0847576187704 0.0628817314937 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => 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.