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 first question that would need to be answered in order to evaluate the argument is: what is the guarantee that food processors would continue to add salicylates to food as preservatives. Here, the author should provide us with food information about how we get salicylates and whether or not they do not replenish. The author conclude that health experts predicts that the people of mentia will suffer fewer headaches in the future. If we know how we tap salicylate from the natural source and also whether or not they would be scarce in the future, then we can evaluate the health experts predictions. If for instance salicylates becomes very scarce, the price for salicylates will rise and food processors may not be able to afford to purchase them in future. In this case, the health experts prediction that the people of mentia will suffer fewer headache will be in doubt. Hence, should the author provide us with information about salicylates, its growth, factors affecting the production of salicylates, then we stand a better chance to decide whether the prediction is plausible.
Another question that need to be addressed is whether the salicylates in natural food can treat headache. The author did not provide any evidence as to whether the salicylates found in natural food can treat headache. Without proof, the author made a sweeping statement about the salicylates found in food. If for instance the salicylates in natural food can not treat headache then the health experts prediction is not as strong as it seems to be. Hence, should the author provides us with information about the salicylates found in natural food and whether or not they can treat headache, then we will be in a better stand to know whether the health experts prediction is possible.
Another question that need to be addressed is: what is the extend of the study. The author does not give us information about the number of people used in the study and also the duration of the study. If the author could give the facts and figure of the study then we will have a platform to decide whether the study is representative or not. If for instance the study included people who had other means of treating headache, then there is a possibility that their treatment is not due to salicylates. If the number of people included in the survey are few say 50, then we cannot use the study to generalize for the whole of Mentia. Hence, if the author could provide us with the facts and figure then we can evaluate the prediction of the health experts.
In conclusion, the author made certain sweeping which demands questioning. In order for the argument to be reasonable, the author must provide the answers to the above mentioned questions.
argument 1 -- not OK. here we need to accept whatever the topic told us are true, so food processors would continue to add salicylates to food as preservatives. need to argue against the conclusion: Based on these study results, some health experts predict that residents of Mentia will suffer even fewer headaches in the future.
suggested:
Granted that salicylates are effective in treating headaches, we cannot hastily infer that they would also be effective in preventing headaches.
argument 2 -- not OK. here we need to accept 'the salicylates in natural food can treat headache.'. The issue goes to: '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.'
suggested:
maybe people use other drugs too to kill headaches to make a steady decline.
argument 3 -- not OK. We have to accept all surveys in GRE topics are correct and representative. It is important to find out loopholes behind surveys. Loopholes mean that we accept all surveys told are true, but there are some conditions applied, for example:
It works for time A (10 years ago), but it doesn't mean it works for time B (nowadays).
It works for location A (a city, community, nation), but it doesn't mean it works for location B (another city, community, nation).
It works for people A (a manager), but it doesn't mean it works for people B (a worker).
It works for event A (one event, project... ), but it doesn't mean it works for event B (another event, project...).
.......
--------------------------------
now we can get the loopholes of the survey:
Yes, it works for A (people who suffered headaches), but it may not work for B (people who don't suffer headaches)
-----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 467 350
No. of Characters: 2216 1500
No. of Different Words: 158 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.649 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.745 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.592 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.35 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.966 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.39 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.568 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.245 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5