A recently issued twenty-year study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia investigated the possible therapeutic effect of consuming salicylates. Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates, food- processing companies also add salicylates to foods as preservatives. The twenty- year study found a correlation between the rise in the commercial use of salicylates and a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by study participants. At the time when the study concluded, food-processing companies had just discovered that salicylates can also be used as flavor additives for foods, and, as a result, many companies plan to do so. Based on these study results, some health experts predict that residents of Mentia will suffer even fewer headaches in the future.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.
Salicylates, as mentioned seem to be an overall useful medication and altrnative to current aspirins since they contain the same chemical families. The writer has presented some intresting research results and an intresting prediction of the future. However, to validate this prediction, we need to examine the facts presented around the participants, as well as the processes, and other ingredients involved in the processing of future meals.
Firstly, a more elaborate look needs to be taken into demographics of the participants. There wasn't any information around the age, fitness levels, job types and health levels of these participants. A 20-year span is a really long period, so, were the participants who started the survey the same as those who are part of the survey now? And would that dataset be congruient in the future? Hw was this data collected? The writer mentioned that they were reported. Basing strictly on reported data alone might be flawed becasue data that wasn't reported never gets captured. Without taking these into consideration, one cannot be sure of the writer's future predictions.
Secondly, to ensure that the writer's prediction holds water, one would need to consider some other factors. One which stands out are the food choices of the participating candidates. It is arguable, unless stated, that their meals might not contain the said ingredient, Salicylates. The participants due to their lifestyle choices might have considered other food choices and since there wasn't any mention, insight or consideration on this, the furture prediction of the writer seems flawed.
Furthermore, in general, processed food has always been known not to be a healthy choice. Hence, looking forward towards the future, the writer needs to address the components of future food-processing. The writer would need to crucially examine the components of what these future processed food would contain. The writer also needs to perfom adequate research and give strong results around the effects and consequences of mixing salicylates and other ingredients and if this mix would still guarantee its potency.
In conclusion, the writer has done a good job of presenting the therapautic effect of salicylates and how its addition to food processing has been positively rewarding, however, the writer needs to present more data around the participants and address the concerns around the ingredients of future foods to make a more solid argument for the postulated future predictions.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 12 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 395 350
No. of Characters: 2059 1500
No. of Different Words: 198 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.458 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.213 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.837 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 158 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.734 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.4 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.322 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.514 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.09 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 95, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...demographics of the participants. There wasnt any information around the age, fitness...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 538, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...alone might be flawed becasue data that wasnt reported never gets captured. Without t...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 30, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ctions. Secondly, to ensure that the writers prediction holds water, one would need ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 389, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...ered other food choices and since there wasnt any mention, insight or consideration o...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, really, second, secondly, so, still, well, in conclusion, in general, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2118.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 392.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.40306122449 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44960558625 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94185195406 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520408163265 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 653.4 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 74.0649039694 57.8364921388 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.9 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.05 5.70786347227 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0440723507942 0.218282227539 20% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0119843042331 0.0743258471296 16% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0261834963272 0.0701772020484 37% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0285697513111 0.128457276422 22% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0187324335006 0.0628817314937 30% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.04 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.