Last year, Kensington Academy turned over management of its cafeteria to a private vendor, Swift Nutrition. This company serves low-fat, low-calorie meals that students do not find enjoyable – my son and several of his friends came home yesterday complaining about the lunch options. While the intent of hiring Swift may have been to cause students to eat healthier foods, the plan is just going to cause students to bring their own, less healthy lunches instead of eating cafeteria food. If Swift is not replaced with another vendor, there will be serious health consequences for Kensington students.
The concerned parent may have raised voice against the recently supplanted vendor stating that the lunch options are not enjoyed by the Kensington Academy's pupils. The parent also argues that the intent of such a turnover is to serve healthier food to the growing children students might start bringing their own lunch which might be unhealthy. Primary inspection of this argument by the concerned parent definitely alerts anyone as to the the assumptions that the parent makes. The parent's argument is rife with unwarranted assumptions and definitely needs a thorough examination of the previous cafeteria service, the neighbourhood in which the school resides, the kind of students the Kensington Academy attracts.
Firstly, children need food that encourage their holistic development of physical, emotional, and their social well being. they do not need tailor made low-fat, low - calorie food. The parent makes an assumption that low - calorie, low - fat foods are healthy. Children need a balanced diet that includes all components of food, which include sufficient amount of carohydrate for their day-to-day activities, fat - for their high intensity works as playing, proteins - for their development. The children, allegedly, do not enjoy the food. One might look into aspects of lunch that are not enjoyed. Increasing the number of lunch options might solve the problem. A routinely served food would obviously tire children and might not be enjoyed. Surprising with different kinds of food every day, with obvious concerns that it is healthy would make it enjoyable.
Secondly, the concerned parent argues that the children might bring unhealthy food if the vendor is not supplanted. The parent makes unwarranted assumption that the children are the one who prepare their lunch and they might not have the proper dietary knowledge. And it also makes an assumption that the nieghborhood is economically backward and might not shelter parents that have proper dietary concerns. Such vague assumptions have to be inspected. Bringing home lunch may be healthy. Since each parent takes utmost importance to their children's health. One should also look into the neighborhood in which the Academy resides in and the economic background of the children. It also makes serious assumption that cafeteria food is always nutritious than home food.
Replacing Swift Nutrition would make thing worse by employing even worse vendor. Employing a vendor who specialise in children's nutrition would be a better option before replacing. Or increasing the lunch options with the Swift Nutrition itself would solve the problem. It is not guaranteed that the change would always bring good with it. It might just exacerbate the situation.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
----------------
flaws:
it is out of topic. It is not an issue essay.
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: o 2
No. of Spelling Errors: o 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 426 350
No. of Characters: 2253 1500
No. of Different Words: 199 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.543 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.289 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.629 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 167 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.04 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.151 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.44 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.302 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.462 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.099 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 437, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...d parent definitely alerts anyone as to the the assumptions that the parent makes. The ...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 437, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...d parent definitely alerts anyone as to the the assumptions that the parent makes. The ...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 484, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'parents'' or 'parent's'?
Suggestion: parents'; parent's
... assumptions that the parent makes. The parents argument is rife with unwarranted assum...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 124, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: They
...emotional, and their social well being. they do not need tailor made low-fat, low - ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 141, Rule ID: NEEDNT_TO_DO_AND_DONT_NEED_DO[3]
Message: Did you mean 'to tailor'?
Suggestion: to tailor
...eir social well being. they do not need tailor made low-fat, low - calorie food. The p...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 268, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t have the proper dietary knowledge. And it also makes an assumption that the nie...
^^
Line 5, column 491, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” 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.
...ed. Bringing home lunch may be healthy. Since each parent takes utmost importance to ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, well, as to, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2306.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 426.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41314553991 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54310108192 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72147585768 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476525821596 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 671.4 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.5721600401 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.6923076923 119.503703932 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3846153846 23.324526521 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.03846153846 5.70786347227 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.109511761852 0.218282227539 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0375215604607 0.0743258471296 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0490371220705 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0694806471336 0.128457276422 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0276784128848 0.0628817314937 44% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.8 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.