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 author propounds that regular dental care is not helpful in preventing tooth decay because children in suburban areas of United States have higher level of tooth decay compared to children in mountain region of Nepal inspite of fact that people in suburban United States see a dentist at average of 1.25 per year compared to little or no dental care received by Nepalese people. Although this explanation seems reasonable but there are other explainations too that can plausibly account for the facts presented.
My first explaination is based on flaws in the method of study on basis of which facts were generated. It is possible that size of examined population was very small and accidentally the population with lower level of tooth decay were not part of study of US suburban people. Another explaination can be that the children examined in the US were of younger age i.e they had milk teeth and nepalese children examined were of age after milk teeth are replaced by better ones.
Another explanation is based on discord between the facts presented. The recmmendation that regular dental care is of no use because US suburban children had higher level of tooth decay can not be concluded on basis of a data about dentist visit be 'Public' in general. So, the possible explaination can be that children of US suburban areas also recieve less or negligible dental care and most of the population that visit dentist is adult. Now but this very explanation can be refuted as one might argue that the recommendation leads to conclusion of equal level of tooth decay and fails to answer the disparity. This question can be answered by considering the possibilty that nepalese children eat food which is less harmful to teeth as compared to that eaten by US suburban children.
Last but not the least, the explaination that the dentist which are visited by the US suburban children are not good and their prescription is harmful rather than being benign, or if the dentist are good, a possibility that children do not follow the prescription can not be ruled out.
No solution, including the one presented by author can be advocated as completely correct or wrong. The possible explaination depend on the accuracy of study on which facts are based and various stated and unstated assumption. The facts need to be explained in more detail to conclude aa better explanation.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The author propounds that regular dental care is not helpful in preventing tooth decay because children in suburban areas of United States have higher level of tooth decay compared to children in mountain region of Nepal inspite of fact that people in suburban United States see a dentist at average of 1.25 per year compared to little or no dental care received by Nepalese people.
Error: inspite Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Although this explanation seems reasonable but there are other explainations too that can plausibly account for the facts presented.
Error: explainations Suggestion: explanations
Error: plausibly Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: My first explaination is based on flaws in the method of study on basis of which facts were generated.
Error: explaination Suggestion: explanation
Sentence: Another explaination can be that the children examined in the US were of younger age i.e they had milk teeth and nepalese children examined were of age after milk teeth are replaced by better ones.
Error: nepalese Suggestion: needless
Error: explaination Suggestion: explanation
Sentence: The recmmendation that regular dental care is of no use because US suburban children had higher level of tooth decay can not be concluded on basis of a data about dentist visit be 'Public' in general.
Error: recmmendation Suggestion: recommendation
Sentence: So, the possible explaination can be that children of US suburban areas also recieve less or negligible dental care and most of the population that visit dentist is adult.
Error: recieve Suggestion: receive
Error: explaination Suggestion: explanation
Sentence: This question can be answered by considering the possibilty that nepalese children eat food which is less harmful to teeth as compared to that eaten by US suburban children.
Error: nepalese Suggestion: needless
Error: possibilty Suggestion: possibility
Sentence: Last but not the least, the explaination that the dentist which are visited by the US suburban children are not good and their prescription is harmful rather than being benign, or if the dentist are good, a possibility that children do not follow the prescription can not be ruled out.
Error: explaination Suggestion: explanation
Sentence: The possible explaination depend on the accuracy of study on which facts are based and various stated and unstated assumption.
Error: explaination Suggestion: explanation
Error: unstated Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: The facts need to be explained in more detail to conclude aa better explanation.
Error: aa Suggestion: an
-----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 15 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 403 350
No. of Characters: 1949 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.48 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.836 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.692 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 131 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 103 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.786 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.324 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.429 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.362 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.155 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, so, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1977.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 402.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.91791044776 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47771567384 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72304446605 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.445273631841 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 633.6 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => 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: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 80.7160872112 57.8364921388 140% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.214285714 119.503703932 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.7142857143 23.324526521 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.57142857143 5.70786347227 45% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.224826778096 0.218282227539 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0754629040624 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0713290567054 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129137103869 0.128457276422 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0824018330034 0.0628817314937 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.3799401198 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.3550499002 89% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.85 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.89 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.