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 given argument prompt is saying that the children who live in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal are facing a lower level of teeth decay than the children living in the suburban areas in the US, though people living in the suburban areas of US visit a dentist an average of 1.25 times per year. So, the argument has decided that the regular dental care in US not that much helpful. At first glance, the argument seems plausible but a close scrutiny reveals a number of loopholes in the given argument.
Firstly, there can be many reasons behind the bad health of teeth of the children living in the suburban areas of the United States. The food habit of two areas can make a huge difference here. Children living in the suburban areas may eat a lot of chocolates and ice-creams which are very much harmful for the good health of teeth. But, as chocolates and ice-creams are not that much available in the mountain region of the Himalayan, the children living in that region don't get to eat that many chocolates and ice-creams. So, they don't suffer the same amount of problem as the children of the suburban areas of the United States. Depending on the above circumstances, we can say that the comparison is not valid.
Secondly, the author of the argument has not mentioned anything about the weather in the two mentioned places. Weather can play a pivotal role in this argument. Maybe the weather of the Himalayan is suitable for the good health of teeth. Maybe the weather of the suburban areas of United States is not good for the good health of teeth. So, to make the argument plausible, the author should mention the detail weather condition of the two places.
Thirdly, it is said in the given argument that people in the suburban areas go to dentist 1.25 times per year. But going to the dentist can not be the only solution. People should follow the advice and the rules and regulations of the dentists. If one goes to a dentist 6 times per year and does not follow the advice of the dentist, it will be of no good. It can be the case that the children of the suburban area of US does not follow the advice and rules of the dentists. So, regular dental care cannot be blamed solely for the bad condition of the children of that particular region.
To conclude, as we have seen that the tooth decaying issue may depend on various factors like the environment, the food habit, awareness of people, we cannot solely blame the regular dental care of the suburban area of United States.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 02
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 452 350
No. of Characters: 2005 1500
No. of Different Words: 168 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.611 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.436 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.294 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 143 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 87 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 25 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.524 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.495 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.358 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.565 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.175 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 443, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: scrutiny
...nce, the argument seems plausible but a close scrutiny reveals a number of loopholes in the gi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 472, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...yan, the children living in that region dont get to eat that many chocolates and ice...
^^^^
Line 3, column 534, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...any chocolates and ice-creams. So, they dont suffer the same amount of problem as th...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2060.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 450.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.57777777778 5.12650576532 89% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6057793516 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.36441102733 2.78398813304 85% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.386666666667 0.468620217663 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 640.8 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.3837100258 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.0952380952 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4285714286 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.14285714286 5.70786347227 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
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: 0.314215329753 0.218282227539 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0829861319548 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108233173949 0.0701772020484 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167487943647 0.128457276422 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.106961345173 0.0628817314937 170% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.08 48.3550499002 139% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.28 12.5979740519 74% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.99 8.32208582834 84% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 98.500998004 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.