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 arguer of given prompt is of the opinion that regular dental care is not helpful in preventing tooth decay. In arriving to such a conclusion, the arguer provides a comparison between the children of Nepal and the United States of America. The conclusion as well as the evidence seem legible on the first read. Although, a closer look could unearth possible alternate possibilities which could prove the arguer's conclusion unwarranted.
Firstly, the arguer has based his conclusion upon a recent study which suggests lower level of tooth decay in children of Nepal than the United States of America. There are a few questions that arise as a consequence of this study. Which organization conducted this study and was it a reliable organization? What were the methods that were undertaken to conduct such a study? If the organization is not deemed fit to conduct such a study, or if the methods used were erroneous. There could be a possibility that children of the United States have a better set of teeth than Nepal. It would therefore cast doubt upon the conclusion that the arguer has come up with.
Secondly, the arguer claims that the people of Nepal have little to no access to professional dental care. The arguer does not provide sufficient basis to back such a claim. What if the children of Nepal are getting professional help in the form of free dental camps or government initiatives? This could mean that professional dental care is the reason for lower levels of tooth decay among the kids of Nepal. Thus, it could contradict the claim that the arguer has made in the given prompt.
Lastly, the arguer has implicitly assumed that a child in the United States visits a dentist only for problems related to tooth decay. Moreover, the statistics provided in the prompt plays no significant role. What if the problem of tooth decay is administered correctly with the help of professional dental care? What if a child visits a dentist for other reasons? This would refute that arguer's claim. And rather it would mean that professional dental care is helpful to prevent tooth decay.
In sum, the arguer's conclusion is based upon untested and unwarranted assumptions. Certain evidences tend to refute the arguer's claim rather than support them. Therefore, the arguer needs to reconsider the evidences provided, in order to make a stronger claim.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 396 350
No. of Characters: 1924 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.461 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.859 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.634 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 131 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 88 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.84 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.814 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.52 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.314 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.508 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 315, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Although” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...vidence seem legible on the first read. Although, a closer look could unearth possible a...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 408, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
...ate possibilities which could prove the arguers conclusion unwarranted. Firstly, the...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 65, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...based his conclusion upon a recent study which suggests lower level of tooth deca...
^^
Line 9, column 13, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
... to prevent tooth decay. In sum, the arguers conclusion is based upon untested and u...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, lastly, look, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, well, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1980.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 396.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46091344257 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69330701239 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.449494949495 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 608.4 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.0831907019 57.8364921388 49% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 79.2 119.503703932 66% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.84 23.324526521 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.96 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.177501119402 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0541332627445 0.0743258471296 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0783264035346 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102424256906 0.128457276422 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0622586466837 0.0628817314937 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.0 14.3799401198 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 48.3550499002 134% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 12.197005988 66% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.42 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.61 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.