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 residents of Mentia will suffer even fewer headaches in the future is flawed for various reasons. In the argument, the author not only draws a strong conclusion based on vague and unwarranted statements, but also tries to conclude that increased usage of salicylates will prevent headaches without any justification.
First, the author concludes that the increased usage of salicylates is the sole reason for the decline in the number of headaches in the twenty-year study. The author does not try to analyse the real reason for the drop and instead tries to conclude that the increased usage of salicylates is the only reason for the fall which is unjustified. The assumption here is that the real reason would not provide any information in analysing the situation which is flawed. This is a common flaw of correlation is causation. For example, if the reason for the drop of the number of headaches is not related to salicylates and it is due to the natural increased resistance of people, it is incorrect to link salicylates and headaches. Because the author does not provide any information that can confirm that the increased usage of salicylates is the only reason for the decline in the number of headaches, it is difficult to conclude that residents of Mentia will suffer even fewer headaches in the future because of the increased usage of salicylates.
Second, the author bases his conclusion on vague and unwarranted statements. While quoting that many foods are naturally rich in salicylates, the author does not provide clear information on the number of foods and the amount of these foods that are being consumed by the people. For example, if there are only two fruits that are naturally rich in salicylates and these fruits are rarely consumed by people, it is unwise to conclude that people take salicylates in large quantities and it resulted in the decline of the number of headaches. Also, while citing that food-processing companies also add salicylates as preservatives, the author fails to statistically define the number of food-processing companies that are adding salicylates. Also, the author does not provide any information on the amount of salicylates that are added by these food-processing companies which makes it very difficult to conclude that salicylates are added in large quantities and it resulted in the decline of headaches. Because the author does not statistically define the number of foods that are naturally rich of salicylates and number of food-processing companies that add salicylates, it is difficult to firmly conclude that salicylates are the only reason for the decreased number of headaches.
Third, the author also assumes that salicylates are related to preventing headaches as they belong to the same chemical family as aspirin which is incorrect. The assumption here is that the salicylates can prevent headaches because they belong to the family of head curing medicine which is unwarranted. For example, if salicylates are not related to headaches inspite of being in the same family as aspirin, it is unwise to conclude that they can prevent headaches. If the author had provided any information that can confirm that salicylates are directly related in curing or preventing headaches, it would be easy to conclude that salicylates can prevent headaches.
Fourth, the author also assumes that many companies have used salicylates as a flavor because they have planned to do so which is unwarranted. The assumption here is that the companies implemented what they have planned which is not justified. For example, if the companies have not implemented their plan of adding salicylates as a flavor because of the shortage of supply of salicylates or because of degradation in the taste of the food by salicylates, it is incorrect to conclude that the companies have implemented their plan. Because the author does not justify whether the companies have started implementing their plan of adding salicylates, it is incorrect to conclude that salicylates are the only reason for the decline in the number of headaches.
In conclusion, Because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, the author fails to make a convincing case that residents of Mentia will suffer even fewer headaches in the future because of the increased usage of salicylates.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not exactly. need to argue:
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.
//it is not 'the more, the better'
argument 3 -- not OK. need to argue:
Based on these study results, some health experts predict that residents of Mentia will suffer even fewer headaches in the future.
//suppose it can cure headaches , but it doesn't mean it can prevent headaches happening.
argument 4 -- not OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 701 350
No. of Characters: 3591 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.146 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.123 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.934 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 272 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 197 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 146 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 123 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.478 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.232 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.609 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.428 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.632 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.21 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, second, so, third, while, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 41.0 19.6327345309 209% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 37.0 13.6137724551 272% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 55.0 28.8173652695 191% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 87.0 55.5748502994 157% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3663.0 2260.96107784 162% => OK
No of words: 701.0 441.139720559 159% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22539229672 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.14552277128 4.56307096286 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0321230952 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.266761768902 0.468620217663 57% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1208.7 705.55239521 171% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 11.0 2.70958083832 406% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 67.7195651825 57.8364921388 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 159.260869565 119.503703932 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.4782608696 23.324526521 131% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.21739130435 5.70786347227 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.181811458234 0.218282227539 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0719383967187 0.0743258471296 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0518696478733 0.0701772020484 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109224373936 0.128457276422 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0399601913947 0.0628817314937 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.4 14.3799401198 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.57 48.3550499002 67% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.197005988 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.65 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.33 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.