Many farmers who invested in the equipment needed to make the switch from synthetic to organic fertilizers and pesticides feel that it would be too expensive to resume synthetic farming at this point. But studies of farmers who switched to organic farming last year indicate that their current crop yields are lower. Hence, their purchase of organic farming farming equipment, a relatively minor investment compared to the losses that would result from continued lower crop yields, cannot justify persisting on an unwise course. And the choice to farm organically is financially unwise, given that it was motivated by environmental rather than economic concerns.
The author of the argument contends that farmers should not persist on the unwise course of continuing organic farming, because it is more related to environmental rather than economic concerns. He or she cites the following as evidence in support of his or her claims: first, the fact that it is too expensive to apply both synthetic and organic farming and second, the incident that farmers who switched to organic farming last year, had their current crop yields lower. The reasoning of the argument is totally flawed as it is based upon unsubstantiated assumptions.
To begin with, the arguer suggests that many farmers who made the switch from synthetic to organic farming feel that it is too expensive to resume synthetic farming at this point. This premise is quite questionable because we do not know if the aforementioned farmers are representative of the overall farming community and in particular, we have no idea of their exact numbers. The arguer should have stated more specific information about their number and role. Additionally, the spokesperson too hastily accepts the point that these farmers think. It is likely that the farmers wrongly feel that it is too expensive to implement both synthetic and organic farming, because they do not possess adequate knowledge on organic farming or even, they are not familiar with the new equipment. The author needs to provide accurate data and statistics that have contributed to this opinion.
Furthermore, the arguer fails to ensure us about the result of the studies showing the reduced crop yields. Many variables enter into the equation, as many other elements could have caused the lower harvest. For example, lack or scant rainfall, plant diseases, reduced minerals in the soil, extreme weather conditions or even new species of insects that have deleterious effects on the crops. Most important, one year could not be enough time for the organic farming to approve its efficacy. The arguer should have quoted more information about the pertinent studies in order for the public to accept its integrity and validity.
Also, the arguer fails to convince us about the unwise, as described method, of organic farming. The fact that the organic farming equipment is a relatively minor investment compared to the losses of crops, concludes a positive correlation rather than a casual connection. The author needs to display more accurate data and numerical tables about the value of each investment. Finally, the concept that organic farming has more to do with environmental rather than economic concerns is scant and lacks substantiation. The author overlooks other factors that could effectively cancel such a premise. For instance, organic products are more expensive than those of the conventional farming and thus, farmers could have higher profits from their cultivation. The government also could fund farmers through a rewarding agricultural policy, helping them to buy or upgrade their equipment.
The argument is weak since neither is the conclusion sound, nor is the suggestion legitimate.
Had there been substantial evidence, perhaps, the argument would have sounded more credible, but in its absence, it sounds indefensible.
Comments
good
good
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, if, look, second, so, thus, for example, for instance, in particular, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 28.8173652695 153% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2720.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 509.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34381139489 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74984508646 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77927126344 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 260.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510805500982 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 845.1 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 18.0 8.76447105788 205% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.4088550794 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.260869565 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1304347826 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.34782608696 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.386732976518 0.218282227539 177% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0970017400785 0.0743258471296 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.137753702502 0.0701772020484 196% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161615080904 0.128457276422 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.151661269886 0.0628817314937 241% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.16 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 143.0 98.500998004 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.