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.
The author`s argument that based on the implication of the recent research to extend it for a prediction about the Mentia resident in the future is flawed. In the argument, not only did the author draw a conclusion based on some unproved analogies, but also did not provide some convincing evidence for controlling other components might influence of the rigidity of the conclusion. Hence, she did assume that the research proposed as the reference of conclusion is itself strong enough similar without elaborating on it.
To begin, the conclusion is hinged on the perception that the study is a good benchmark for reasoning the decline to be predicted for the Mentia residents. In doing so, the author fails to provide for the reader how strong was the report in a sense to be able to be a representative of the Mentia. The study done, might be somehow dissimilar in terms of the sample tested, the age distribution of the sample, medical background and the companies who the products were used by the control group of the study. The stated argument did not support whether the Metina residents are the same consumers as the study. Since the author does not provide adequate information regarding this statistical flaw and also analogy, it is impossible to determine and apply the same result of the research for the Mentia Residents.
The other point is that the author does not mention any information about the time difference the study was done and the current implication which is decided to be induced. The underlying assumption is that the companies are still using the Salicylates as same as when they were using at the time of the study and have not added some other element which may have negative correlation with headache diseases and also may have stronger effects. Hence, she ignored the possibilities of other factors affecting the prediction.
To conclude, the author fails to provide convincing evidence that everything regarding the Mentia is as equal as the study done to have such prediction. The line of reasoning could be strengthened if the author states more detail about the analogies of the two samples and also could be further strengthened if she were to inform more details about the other components may have effecting potent on the result. As it stands, however, the argument in its current form, is not a rigorous line of reason be having such prediction as the reasons indicated.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, may, regarding, so, still, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2023.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 407.0 441.139720559 92% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97051597052 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49157444576 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77685195805 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 204.123752495 91% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.454545454545 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 651.6 705.55239521 92% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.0615737822 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.5 119.503703932 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.0714285714 23.324526521 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.42857142857 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
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 : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.108696174324 0.218282227539 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0424898355269 0.0743258471296 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0347447754605 0.0701772020484 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0670928624555 0.128457276422 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0325507803122 0.0628817314937 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 48.3550499002 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.14 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.