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.
It has been predicted by an International Development Organization that the people in Tagus will readily adopt the new variety of millet, which has recently been engineered by the organization. They have come to this conclusion based on the fact that the new variety of millet is high in Vitamin A, and the people of Tagus are deficient in Vitamin A. The international development organization has also predicted that since the millet is already a staple food of the people in Tagus, the people there will easily adopt the new one. However, before persuading the people in Tagus to consume and include the new variety of millet in their diet, three questions must be answered.
First of all, will the land in Tagus be suitable for the new variety of millet? It is possible that the weather conditions and fertility of the land required for the growth of new variety of millet can be different from the existing land conditions. For example, the new variety of the millet requires a good amount of moisture in the soil but it is possible that the farmlands in Tagus are more prone to droughts. If the above stated example holds true, then cultivation of the new variety of millet will not be possible in Tagus, provided already the higher costs of the new millet seeds and therefore a thorough study of the cultivation and land fertility is required to have the predicted result.
Secondly, even if the farmers will be able to cultivate the new millet, the question is what will be the selling price of the new variety. Since, the nation is impoverished, then even though after cultivating the new variety, if the selling price of the new variety goes high, then it is most unlikely that the people in Tagus will be able to afford the new millet. And therefore, only after carrying a detailed study of the estimation of the prices of the new millet, it will be possible to promote the usage of the new variety of millet.
Lastly, what is the efficacy of this new type of millet? And whether the people in Tagus are only deprived of Vitamin A or there might be any other deficiencies as well? It is also possible that the new millet might have some side-effects, or maybe the taste of the millet won’t be as good as the taste of the staple millet. This might again cause the hindrance in promoting the new millet to the people. If the people in Tagus not only have Vitamin A deficiency but also lack some other deficiencies. Then adding a new and high-cost crop will not be as efficient as it is being predicted. So, only after a thorough study of the requirements and answer to the above questions, will then the organization be able to promote the new type of millet.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on the unwarranted assumptions. If the organization is able to answer the above three questions, offer more evidence and detailed study of the people of Tagus (as to why the people are deficient in Vitamin A and if it is the only vitamin deficiency) and at the same time a thorough study of the new variety of millet and whether the millet will be suitable for the people in Tagus, it will then only be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation to promote the new variety of millet in Tagus.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 587 350
No. of Characters: 2646 1500
No. of Different Words: 193 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.922 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.508 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.571 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 173 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.895 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 18.416 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.842 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.457 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.487 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.196 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 2 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 357, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... in Tagus will be able to afford the new millet. And therefore, only after carryi...
^^
Line 4, column 516, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...k some other deficiencies. Then adding a new and high-cost crop will not be as ef...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, as to, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.6327345309 178% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 83.0 55.5748502994 149% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2703.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 586.0 441.139720559 133% => OK
Chars per words: 4.61262798635 5.12650576532 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.92010537223 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65139666034 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.339590443686 0.468620217663 72% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 886.5 705.55239521 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 91.2290934954 57.8364921388 158% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.15 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.3 23.324526521 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.8 5.70786347227 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => 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: 0.523178403117 0.218282227539 240% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.209476623668 0.0743258471296 282% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0776264123758 0.0701772020484 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.347657225537 0.128457276422 271% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0578498459043 0.0628817314937 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.5 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.05 12.5979740519 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.72 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => 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.