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.
The argument claims that regular dental care is not helpful in preventing tooth decay. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumption that the study done on both the sample was enough and not biased or the sample size was enough to reach a conclusion from the study.Also, the authenticity of such study is in doubt as there it is not mentioned who was the authority who conducted this study and what was the error percentage for the study. hence, the argument is weak / unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the samples used for the study was unbiased and the error margin of the study was low. But arriving at the conclusion from this assumption is a stretched as there may be a case that the sample for both the region was biased or it was too small to correctly depicts the whole population. In such a case there is a serious doubt on the result of the study. Also, as there is no mention of the error percentage for the study, so assuming that the study was conducted with a very low error percentage is again a issue. In a situation where the error percentage is very high for such a study, arriving at a conclusion from it will again be erroneous.Also, the argument fails to mention the authority or agency who conducted the stated study, thus without this information it won't be possible to authenticate the correctness of the study.The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated all these information and provided substantial evidence to arrive at the stated conclusion.
Secondly, the argument fails to take in consideration the eating habits of both the region. Various studies had suggested that the main reason for tooth decay does not depend only on proper care of the teeth but also on the food being consumed. There may be a case that the children of suburban areas in the United States consume lots of junk and artificial sugary food while children living in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal mostly consume more natural foods and foods less in sugar. In such a situation again the argument fails as it does not provide any evidence for this.
Lastly, one important point was missed or wrongly assumed that the genetic or calcium content in the both of children is same for both the region. Studies have proved in past that people with high or balanced calcium content in body undergoes lesser tooth decay than people with substantially less calcium in body. So may be higher concentration of calcium in children living in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal may be a reason for their lesser tooth decay as compared to children of suburban areas in the United States.
In conclusion the argument is flawed due to absence of many crucial evidence which are required to correctly examine the argument and arrive at a conclusion. In order to asses the merit of the situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all other contributing factors. In this case the above stated evidence which we help us to correctly examine the argument. Without all these additional information, the argument remains questionable and open to debate.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not exactly
----------------
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/recent-study-indic…
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 559 350
No. of Characters: 2628 1500
No. of Different Words: 222 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.862 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.701 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.558 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 178 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 129 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.421 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 18.508 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.579 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.566 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 369, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Also
...gh to reach a conclusion from the study.Also, the authenticity of such study is in d...
^^^^
Line 1, column 543, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Hence
...was the error percentage for the study. hence, the argument is weak / unconvincing an...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 550, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...th a very low error percentage is again a issue. In a situation where the error p...
^
Line 3, column 689, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Also
...clusion from it will again be erroneous.Also, the argument fails to mention the auth...
^^^^
Line 3, column 876, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...thenticate the correctness of the study.The argument could have been much clearer i...
^^^
Line 3, column 946, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this information' or 'these informations'?
Suggestion: this information; these informations
...uch clearer if it explicitly stated all these information and provided substantial evidence to ar...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 56, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun evidence seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much crucial evidence', 'a good deal of crucial evidence'.
Suggestion: much crucial evidence; a good deal of crucial evidence
...he argument is flawed due to absence of many crucial evidence which are required to correctly examine...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 279, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...edge of all other contributing factors. In this case the above stated evidence whi...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus, while, as to, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 16.3942115768 195% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2677.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 555.0 441.139720559 126% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82342342342 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85370353223 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66118197881 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.416216216216 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 851.4 705.55239521 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 99.5209902483 57.8364921388 172% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.85 119.503703932 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.75 23.324526521 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6 5.70786347227 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.198945845176 0.218282227539 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0613411255707 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.099922375772 0.0701772020484 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132821705398 0.128457276422 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.131325096454 0.0628817314937 209% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 48.3550499002 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 12.197005988 103% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.