This argument is about an effective way that can preclude more risk of the bone fractures of elderly. The author cites that based on his study, a group of old people who are using supplements of vitamin D and calcium twice a day can reduce the risk of being hurt in the aspect of bone fracture. Although this remedy might have some positive effect on old people's health, the author can not provide enough and cogent reasons to generalize his recommendation to all the people.
The first and the most important flaw that springs to mind is that the language of the editorial is very vague. In fact, the author cites" a group of French women" and then concludes that the results works for all human category. It should be noted that this study only applies on the France and only female gender. Needless to say that each countries or even continents have their own characteristics like climate and geographical conditions or other disparities which cause different impacts on the people of that location. As an example, some people have been exposure to the more amount of sun light and then absorb more vitamin D throughout their lifetime, and not surprisingly, they have a healthier life style. In other words, people of some places have better condition to have strong and vigorous bodies, which help them a lot to have a less bone fractures. Additionally, the sex is also important. This experiment is on the women and the author has forgotten to cite the results of such trend on the males. Hence, this conclusion that the French women have been cured and it can be generalized to all people seem absurd.
One more problems with this argument is that the study considers people on their eighties. In fact, this study is restricted to a specific age, so it should not be concluded that it is true for all ages. Moreover, the author has mentioned that the women in this study participated in the weightlifting program. However, the relationship between this program and the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium have not even distributed. Possibly, there is a positive correlation between exercise and the reduction in the risk of bone fracture. Thus, the author should note that this program in which means has been applicable.
Additionally, the study cites that this recommendation is successful only to lower the rate of hip fracture. However, the author generalized this point to all bone fracture. If he tends to prove this fact, he should consider all aspects of bone fractures and provide other cogent evidence or clinical research and studies to have a convincing editorial. Besides, the author only considers those women whom have nurse caring. It is clear that these group compared with those resident without any nurse certainly have less fracture since these nurses have taken care of themselves.
In conclusion, the author can not offer strong and convincing reasons to have a proper editorial. The author must search for some solid evidence and strengthen his claims with more larger statistical society.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 177, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'larger' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: larger
...evidence and strengthen his claims with more larger statistical society.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, hence, however, if, moreover, so, then, thus, as for, in conclusion, in fact, in other words, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 28.8173652695 167% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2538.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 511.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96673189824 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75450408675 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70485637751 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.465753424658 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 794.7 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.281229878 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.52 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.44 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.24 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.199629453793 0.218282227539 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0584126315275 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.053849885737 0.0701772020484 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116139676925 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0648914641142 0.0628817314937 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.