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 following argument is flawed for several reasons, Primarily, the argument is based on the unwarranted fact that that Himalayan mountain region in Nepal is same as suburban areas in the united States, rendering its main conclusion that regular dental care is not helpful in preventing tooth decay.
That argument fails to provide justification that the two cities are same in terms of their eating habits, For one, suburban areas in United States have more access to junk food than Himalayan mountain region in Nepal. It is pretty obvious that junk food is one of the main factor for tooth decay among children. The argument would have been strong had it provided information regarding the similarity in the eating habits of the two regions. Even then, the argument would have to further prove that people in Himalayan mountain region in Nepal spend as much on the junk food as the people living in suburban areas in the United States.
The argument also leaves many other unanswered questions. The argument states that children in Nepal have lower levels on tooth decay than children in United States. But it does not provide facts and figures to prove its point. It is possible that the population of Himalayan region in Nepal is less than the suburban areas in the United States, but overall percentage of tooth decay among children in Nepal is more than the suburban areas of United States. Thus to make a stronger argument the argument should state facts and figures.
Finally, the argument claims without warrant that the dental hygiene products used in both the regions is same. So, it is possible that children in Nepal use more natural products for their dental hygiene than the suburban areas of the United States. Even f if assume the two regions use same similar products for their dental hygiene, it is a high possibility that what children eating food in United States lead to more cavities than the food eaten by children in Himalayan mountain region in Nepal.
Because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that regular dental care is not helpful in preventing tooth decay.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.0 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 361 350
No. of Characters: 1752 1500
No. of Different Words: 138 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.359 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.853 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.347 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 132 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 86 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 24 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.786 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.295 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.643 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.432 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.64 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 459, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...an the suburban areas of United States. Thus to make a stronger argument the argumen...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, if, regarding, so, then, thus, in conclusion, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1795.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 361.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.97229916898 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35889894354 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39680550029 2.78398813304 86% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 204.123752495 70% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.393351800554 0.468620217663 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 564.3 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.8976078105 57.8364921388 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.214285714 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7857142857 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.21428571429 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.464677597774 0.218282227539 213% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.179257617793 0.0743258471296 241% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.155528191268 0.0701772020484 222% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.265750324427 0.128457276422 207% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.126480254966 0.0628817314937 201% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.72 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 98.500998004 66% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.