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.
This argument is based on many extreme explanations. Primarily, it considers the Himalayan mountain region to be completely similar to Suburban areas of the United States.
In this world, all the people do not face exactly same atmosphere. For example, the western countries of world remain cooler throughout the year than middle eastern. Similar is the assumption seen in the argument. It might be the case that the tooth decay faced by children of suburban areas of the US are because of their weather conditions and that weather may not be faced by people of Himalayan mountain region. However, if the weather conditions are same, then there are other questions that need to be answered by the argument.
People go to the doctors not only when they have some kind of disease, they may go there for their regular checkup. The argument assumes that the people of suburban areas of US who go 1.25 times a year to dentists, go for treatment of their children tooth decay. However, they may go for the regular treatment from dentists. Such regular treatment can be the teeth cleaning.
On the bigger picture, the argument assumes the study to be completely valid. The argument fails to specify the suburban areas which have been taken into consideration of the study. The study might be conducted by the students of an institution for just fulfillment of their degrees' formality and they collected the response by questionnaire without surveying the areas themselves. In such cases, the study may not be considered to be valid.
The argument can therefore be strengthened by addressing the validity of the study with specifying the suburban areas, justifying the similarity between suburban areas of US and Himalayan mountain areas followed by evaluation of reason of suburban areas people visiting the dentist 1.25 times per year.
Therefore, it can be concluded that for this argument to be plausible, it should address the issues of validity of study and its evaluating its vague terms.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not OK
argument 4 -- not OK
----------------
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: 17 15
No. of Words: 330 350
No. of Characters: 1623 1500
No. of Different Words: 156 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.262 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.918 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.634 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 113 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 97 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.412 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.594 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.471 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.327 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.609 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.119 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 126, Rule ID: IT_IS[7]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...ess the issues of validity of study and its evaluating its vague terms.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, may, so, then, therefore, for example, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1663.0 2260.96107784 74% => OK
No of words: 330.0 441.139720559 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.03939393939 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71749256489 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 204.123752495 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.469696969697 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 514.8 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 66.574983092 57.8364921388 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.8235294118 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4117647059 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.47058823529 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.200473608285 0.218282227539 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.066351509682 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0897272570745 0.0701772020484 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120731395679 0.128457276422 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0726216332835 0.0628817314937 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 98.500998004 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.