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 argument recommends that the deficiency of Vitamin A among the impoverished people of Tagus can be fulfilled by promoting the new breed of millet high in vitamin A. However, the argument is not well reasoned because it is based on several flawed presumptions. The argument has various shortcomings including planning and analogy flaw.
Firstly, the argument assumes that millet, being the staple food in the country will be self-sufficient to fulfill the deficiency of Vitamin A among the people. This might not be the case because there is no data presented regarding the deficiency of the Vitamin A and the nutritional value of new breed of millet. If we had been given this data, we would have been in better position to evaluate the argument.
Secondly, the argument is based on the underlying assumption that the farmers will be able to buy the new breed of millet, given the subsidies for farming. This assumption has no firm grounding as there are no details regarding the difference in cost of the old and new breed of millet. Also, we have no information on the subsidies given. Hence, due to this lack of data, we cannot interpret whether the subsidy provided is enough for the farmers to buy the Vitamin A rich millet.
Furthermore, the argument also has an analogy flaw as it assumes that the new breed will be readily accepted among the citizens, same as the old one. Although, we know that millet is already a staple food in Tagus, what we do not have any information about is wheather the people are willing to accept the new breed or not. Insofar, we have no information wheater the new breed has the same taste as the old one, as it might be the cause for the new breed not being accepted. Given that we do not have any data to validate this assumption under question, the argument fails to validate itself.
Therefore, based on the examples and reasons given above we can certainly conclude that the argument is not based on firm ground. Consequently, the argument fails to provide sufficient data to validate the underlying assumptions. Thus in the absence of such details the argument remains unconvincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 324, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'subsidies'' or 'subsidy's'?
Suggestion: subsidies'; subsidy's
...et. Also, we have no information on the subsidies given. Hence, due to this lack of data,...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 231, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...to validate the underlying assumptions. Thus in the absence of such details the argu...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 55.5748502994 76% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1775.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 368.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.82336956522 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37987740619 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72127846975 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.426630434783 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 563.4 705.55239521 80% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.0993438965 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.411764706 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6470588235 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.23529411765 5.70786347227 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.329708102628 0.218282227539 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.120771489043 0.0743258471296 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.12704189066 0.0701772020484 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.201703564118 0.128457276422 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102025705862 0.0628817314937 162% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 98.500998004 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.