Milk and dairy products are rich in vitamin D and calcium — substances essential for building and maintaining bones. Many people therefore say that a diet rich in dairy products can help prevent osteoporosis, a disease that is linked to both environmental and genetic factors and that causes the bones to weaken significantly with age. But a long-term study of a large number of people found that those who consistently consumed dairy products throughout the years of the study have a higher rate of bone fractures than any other participants in the study. Since bone fractures are symptomatic of osteoporosis, this study result shows that a diet rich in dairy products may actually increase, rather than decrease, the risk of osteoporosis.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The writer argues that diet rich in dairy products actually increases the risk of osteoporosis what is found to be in contradiction to the widely held belief. It is based on the premises that study that covered long period had concluded that people who were consuming diets rich in dairy products had higher rate of bone fractures than that of other participants of the study. The argument seems true at first sight, however, on deeper analysis it becomes clear that certain relevant aspects have not been taken into account, leading to a large number of unverified evidences.
First such evidence is the effect of high rate of bone fractures that is caused by only dairy products. However, there may be the case that these participants were also consuming other food items which might have opposite reaction to that of the dairy products that would make the argument significantly weakened. For example, the milk provides Vitamin D that is essential for bone development and maintenance but consuming milk that is not natural or rather produced by machines might have not sufficient quantities of Vitamin D. Therefore, in order to overcome this flaw, the writer should collect the evidence from their diet history to know what type of milk and dairy products these people were consuming and should also prove that these people were consuming milk that had enough quantity of Vitamin D.
Secondly, the writer’s argument is incorrectly based on the analogy that bone fractures were not caused by genetic and environmental factors. However, there may be important differences in this relationship such as those people might had higher chances of bone diseases because of genetic factors and the environment they were living into was prone to bone fractures that would make the argument unreliable. For example, it may likely that people had higher chances of this malady because their ancestors had issues with their bones and the environment is rife with pollution and harmful chemicals that impair the bone density. Hence, in order to make the argument more reliable, the writer should assemble the evidences to show that these people had not had any issues with their genetic conditions and should also assert that only dairy products were responsible for the bone fractures.
Finally, the writer has arbitrarily assumed the unverified evidences pertaining to the statistical numbers or percentages. However, it is possible that large number of people may denote only 50.5 percentage of the total people studied while other 49.5 percentage had not reported any bone issues that would make the argument unacceptable. For example, it may be found that people who consumed consistently dairy products and reported bone issues were only just above the half of the population while other part of the population were found to be immune despite consuming dairy products. Thus, in order to make the argument more valid, the writer should compile the evidence from the study for what constitutes large number of people and should also demonstrate that these people were in large number as per standards of medical society.
After close examination of the argument presented, it is apparent that the argument as it stands now is considerably flawed due to its reliance on certain unverified evidences. The recommendations in the above paragraphs show how this argument may be strengthened and made more logically sound in order to evaluate the results proposed by the study.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 563 350
No. of Characters: 2866 1500
No. of Different Words: 232 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.871 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.091 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.595 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 203 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 151 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 35.188 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.587 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.875 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.387 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.606 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 538, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...not been taken into account, leading to a large number of unverified evidences. First such evid...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, while, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 28.0 13.6137724551 206% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 48.0 28.8173652695 167% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2919.0 2260.96107784 129% => OK
No of words: 563.0 441.139720559 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18472468917 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87110059796 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67311153381 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.412078152753 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 936.0 705.55239521 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 33.0 22.8473053892 144% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 49.0875215822 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 171.705882353 119.503703932 144% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.1176470588 23.324526521 142% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.88235294118 5.70786347227 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.176963664337 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0666302545624 0.0743258471296 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0594625029212 0.0701772020484 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1088209425 0.128457276422 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0698970499991 0.0628817314937 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.5 14.3799401198 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.52 48.3550499002 61% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.3 12.197005988 142% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.36 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 98.500998004 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.2 11.1389221557 136% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.