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.
Here, the speaker concludes that regular dental care is not an aid in order to prevent tooth decay, by examining the people from two specific regions, namely the himalayan mountain region in Nepal and the suburban areas of the United States. The speaker observes data that is mentioning a lower tooth decay for the children in the Himalayan region of Nepal than the children living in the suburban areas of the United States. The speaker's speculation or analysis skills are very narrow and inept. Behind any issue, irrespective of important or trivial, there will be necessarily many parameters involved for any argument to reach the conclusion. Here, such as the biological strength of the tooth, regional pollution, food, habits, etc. Without clear evidence, the speaker, here, jumping to meaningless conclusions is indeed maladroit.
Certainly, the children from both mentioned regions are from different biological entities, for example, on the basis of research that took place in a few parts of Andhra Pradesh, it was statistically proven that irrespective of the quantity all people eat and the number of visits to cardiologists, the people belonging to professions like barber, teaching, pujari, etc has a bit more probability to become fat. That is because of the push caused by inheritance and genes. On the bright side, these statistics encouraged many people to go to the gym and transform into fit, as a step toward preventing from becoming fat.
And there are many cases where the people living near hill stations have a less probability to suffer from any kind of mental issue, because of pure and limited coffee intake, or getting longer breaths, as pressure there will be low, or an enormous physical effort as their land is not flat. Likewise, many scenarios or situations are dependent on food habits, hereditary, geography, etc. So, after considering all those effects into parameters, the cautious step of visiting a doctor will most probably be an optimistic effect instead specious.
In sum, trying to prevent any harmful thing or being cautious will most probably be the right thing to pursue. With the scornful thinking and inept behavior of the speaker, the conclusion might affect many people who are following safety measures. As mostly say think deeper and come to conclusion as there will be billions of people in this dependent society who may follow your conclusion. On this note, always remember, that prevention is always better than cure.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 403 350
No. of Characters: 2018 1500
No. of Different Words: 231 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.48 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.007 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.624 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 106 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.786 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.293 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.357 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.324 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.067 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 431, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'speakers'' or 'speaker's'?
Suggestion: speakers'; speaker's
...uburban areas of the United States. The speakers speculation or analysis skills are very...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, likewise, may, so, for example, kind of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => 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: 2074.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 403.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.14640198511 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48049772903 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70282903744 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.573200992556 0.468620217663 122% => OK
syllable_count: 646.2 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 89.8248077858 57.8364921388 155% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.625 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1875 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.25 5.70786347227 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.219401647424 0.218282227539 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0666569964246 0.0743258471296 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.129317621789 0.0701772020484 184% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117059427439 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.128829265969 0.0628817314937 205% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.