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.
In the argument given, the author suggests that the government of Tagus has to promote the new type of millet so as to curb the deficiency of vitamin A among its people. There are many points on which this decision stands. Though the argument put forth seems convincing, there are many unstated assumptions which need introspection in order to make this argument a cogent one.
To begin with, the author alleges that there was a deficiency of vitamin A among the people in Tagus. But solid reason for the deficiency was not mentioned. Was the deficiency due to any atmospheric conditions or water related problems? If it is due to any such conditions then measures must be taken to prevent some practices. However, the reason for that question was not mentioned in the argument provided.
Secondly, there was a comparison of cost between new breed of millet which is high in vitamin A and the older one. But, the reason for the higher cost was not mentioned. One cannot assume that a farmer would readily purchase the new variety by blindly believing what he organization says. Was the increase in cost due to scarcity of the new variety? If so, what can be done to increase its production? If the reason for the increase was mentioned, the farmers would readily accept the proposal and adhere to it.
In addition to that, are all the farmers ready to use the new variety in their fields? What if there are any negative effects to the field of the farmer when these seeds are sown? Has any testing been conducted on any smaller scale so that there are any unwarranted consequences? If there are any negative effects due to the production of newer seeds, most of the farmers may not adopt to the change.
There is also a point that subsidies would be provided to the farmers for farming the new variety of millet. However, the amount of subsidy which is being provided is not mentioned. For instance, if the cost is $100 per kilogram of new millet and the government provides only $50 as subsidy, most of the farmers who cannot pay the additional $50 cannot agree with the plan. Thus, the amount of subsidy which is being provided has to be mentioned by the author.
Most importantly, the reason behind the improvement of vitamin A due to this new variety has to be mentioned. How is it different from the older one? How does that change improve the concentration of vitamin A? Are there any side effects for it? One cannot come to a conclusion that people can readily adopt to a new variety without proper evidence. Had the author provided the valid points to answer these questions to buttress his argument, it would have been a cogent one.
To conclude, though the points put forth by the author in the argument seems legitimate, there are many factors - reason for deficiency, how subsidies are provided, farmers interest to adapt to the new variety and comparison with the older variety of millet - which not mentioned which weakens the argument made by the author. Had the author provided compelling reasons for all those questions, his argument would have been convincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 111, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...s has to promote the new type of millet so as to curb the deficiency of vitamin A among ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 238, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...c conditions or water related problems? If it is due to any such conditions then m...
^^
Line 7, column 381, Rule ID: ADOPT_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'adapt to'?
Suggestion: adapt to
...ewer seeds, most of the farmers may not adopt to the change. There is also a point t...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 340, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... farmers who cannot pay the additional 0 cannot agree with the plan. Thus, the am...
^^^
Line 11, column 303, Rule ID: ADOPT_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'adapt to'?
Suggestion: adapt to
...to a conclusion that people can readily adopt to a new variety without proper evidence. ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus, as to, for instance, in addition, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2552.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 537.0 441.139720559 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.75232774674 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81386128306 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57692698039 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.402234636872 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 808.2 705.55239521 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Interrogative: 5.0 0.471057884232 1061% => Less interrogative sentences wanted.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.8836041091 57.8364921388 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.0666666667 119.503703932 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.66666666667 5.70786347227 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.264597402295 0.218282227539 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0783665199266 0.0743258471296 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0724003378344 0.0701772020484 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135195238812 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0467208033329 0.0628817314937 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 14.3799401198 69% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 48.3550499002 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.97 12.5979740519 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.16 8.32208582834 86% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.