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 proposal in its current state fails to be convincing in its suggestion that the millet is the answer to the vitamin deficiency due to a number of unanswered questions.
The first assumption fails to compare the millet to existing crops. While it is said to be high in Vitamin A, there are no studies quoted to prove that the vitamin content is substantially higher. Should the new breed have a marginally higher content of Vitamin A, the increased cost to the Government is not offset by the benefits of the crop. The proposal also fails to account for the other dietary requirements to allow for the absorption of Vitamin A. A crop rich in Vitamin A would be of no use if the human body is incapable of absorbing the nutrients due to the absence of prerequisites. The statement also fails to identify a reason for the Vitamin deficiency. Without an established link between a deficiency and the current crop, a replacement of the millet might not solve the Vitamin deficiency. Also, no studies are mentioned where the engineered millet has been proved to provide a greater level of nourishment than the existing breed of millet. The study would have to span a large cross section of society with a control group to conclusively state that the engineered millet is superior to the existing crop. In the event that the engineered millet is found to contain Vitamin A that is readily absorbed and is similar to the current crop, it would be suggested to switch over to the engineered millet.
While the engineered millet is in the same family as the millet grown in Tagus, there are no mentions of the similarity in taste and texture of the foods made using the engineered millet. For it to gain widespread acceptance, the engineered millet has to mimic the current millet. No mention is made of the yield from the crop either. If the engineered millet results in a significantly lower yield when compared to the current millet, it would not be in the best interest of the farmers growing it. Further, a lower yield would necessitate greater use of land which the country of Tagus might not have accessible to it. The study also fails to mention the needs to grow the crop in terms of water and fertilizers. Should it be shown that the engineered millet requires substantially more water and exotic fertilizer not accessible to the farmers, the new crop would not be economically viable. Also, there are no mentions of the pest resistance of the crop, which is a major requirement to assess the sustainability of the crop. If it is found that the crop has water and fertilizer requirements that can be met by the farmers and has the pest resistance to survive in the nation of Tagus, the engineered millet would be a viable alternative to the existing millet grown.
The Government should also consider other alternatives to millet which would serve to combat the Vitamin A deficiency in the country of Tagus. Should a food be found such that it meets all the aforementioned requirements in terms of sustainability and practicality, it allows for diversification of the crop and moves away from dependence on millet for nourishment.
If the questions raised are satisfactorily answered, it would be recommended to switch to the engineered strain of millet to combat the deficiency in the nation of Tagus.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 225, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t. For it to gain widespread acceptance, the engineered millet has to mimic the c...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'if', 'so', 'while', 'as to']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.251231527094 0.25644967241 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.16091954023 0.15541462614 104% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0821018062397 0.0836205057962 98% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0361247947455 0.0520304965353 69% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0213464696223 0.0272364105082 78% => OK
Prepositions: 0.118226600985 0.125424944231 94% => OK
Participles: 0.0492610837438 0.0416121511921 118% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.90072289386 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0574712643678 0.026700313972 215% => Less infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.151067323481 0.113004496875 134% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0262725779967 0.0255425247493 103% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0114942528736 0.0127820249294 90% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3310.0 2731.13054187 121% => OK
No of words: 571.0 446.07635468 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.79684763573 6.12365571057 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88831323574 4.57801047555 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.325744308231 0.378187486979 86% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.245183887916 0.287650121315 85% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.15411558669 0.208842608468 74% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.122591943958 0.135150697306 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90072289386 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 207.018472906 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.371278458844 0.469332199767 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 43.7603310906 52.1807786196 84% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 24.8260869565 23.2022227129 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.666455126 57.7814097925 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.913043478 141.986410481 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8260869565 23.2022227129 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.260869565217 0.724660767414 36% => More Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 49.3444757481 51.9672348444 95% => OK
Elegance: 1.91729323308 1.8405768891 104% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.417015949638 0.441005458295 95% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.166056174404 0.135418324435 123% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0716248415401 0.0829849096947 86% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.68418553911 0.58762219726 116% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.134024233951 0.147661913831 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.220170439644 0.193483328276 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0614249188015 0.0970749176394 63% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.644760948392 0.42659136922 151% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.114594924988 0.0774707102158 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.33233274144 0.312017818177 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0294227756907 0.0698173142475 42% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.33743842365 144% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.