A recent study indicates that children living in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal have lower levels of tooth decay than children living in suburban areas in the United States, despite the fact that people in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal receive little to no professional dental care, while people in suburban areas in the United States see a dentist an average of 1.25 times per year. Thus, regular dental care is not helpful in preventing tooth decay.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The argument attempts to bridge a conclusion that, regular dental care is not helpful in preventing tooth decay. That conclusion is based on the premises that, without any regular dental care, children in Nepal have lower level of tooth decay than children in USA. However, in deeper analysis, it become evident that, certain relevant aspects have not been taken into consideration, leading to a number of mistaken assumptions and logical flaws.
One such flaw in the argument is that, it is based on a study whereas the scope and validity of that study is not verified. It is not clear, how much children were taken into the study and what was the method of testing tooth decay. If a statistics is not clear and reliable, it can not be used to back up the author's conclusion.
Moreover, the argument says that, children in the USA see a dentist on an average of 1.25 times per year. But only with that information, we can not reach to a conclusion that, regular dental care is not helpful as dentists do not work with tooth decay only. There are many other tooth ailments for which children can consult with a dentist. Similarly, it is not guaranteed that, children's are working according to the dentist's prescriptions. There can be situations like, what doctor advice, are not followed by the children. So, if that is the case, we can not just vilify the regular dental care for not being helpful in preventing tooth decay. At the same time, food habit can play a vital role in tooth's strength and that is why we can not just say that dental care is not working without knowing the food habit of the people of suburban USA. The author of the argument should have clarified that issue to make his claim more believable.
Additionally, it is not clear in the argument that, whether the report indicates proportion or number of children on those two areas. If the report is made on numbers of children having tooth decay, obviously there can be small number of children having tooth decay in Himalayan mountain region in Nepal, as there live a very small amount of people compared to the suburban areas in the United States. So, to substantiate the author's viewpoints, the author should have clarified that issue.
So, to conclude, the argument lacks information and seems to provide inchoate assumptions. The conclusion provided by the author seems tenuous due to lack of supporting evidences. The argument should have presented more logical information and concrete evidence to substantiate the viewpoints and to make the argument more cogent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 298, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'becomes'?
Suggestion: becomes
...in USA. However, in deeper analysis, it become evident that, certain relevant aspects ...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 145, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...y is not verified. It is not clear, how much children were taken into the study and ...
^^^^
Line 2, column 310, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...able, it can not be used to back up the authors conclusion. Moreover, the argument say...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, moreover, similarly, so, whereas
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2113.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 436.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.84633027523 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56953094068 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60297052601 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.461009174312 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 655.2 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 2.0 0.471057884232 425% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.6217875581 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.65 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.5 5.70786347227 44% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.262763756336 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0729201714145 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106340066816 0.0701772020484 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148160121679 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.123691973004 0.0628817314937 197% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => 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: 10.85 12.5979740519 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.