Typically, as people age, their bone mass decreases, making them more vulnerable to bone fractures. A recent study concludes that the most effective way to reduce the risk of fractures in later life is to take twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium daily. The three-year study followed a group of French women in their eighties who were nursing home residents. The women were given daily supplements of twice the recommended dose of vitamin D and calcium. In addition, the women participated in a light weightlifting program. After three years, these women showed a much lower rate of hip fractures than is average for their age.
According to the author as people grow older there bone mass decreases and thus making them vulnerable to bone fractures and to prevent bone fractures the most effective way is to double the recommended dose of Vitamin D and calcium daily. The author's conclusion is full of fault and need to be amended on serveral areas until a fine concrete conclusion can be drawn out of it.
Firsty the study's authentication is not given and the scientific norms under which the study was done need to be mentioned when a conclusion is drawn from it. Along with that no records of how the supplements were given to the subjects need to observed carefully. Since when the vitamins is provided via a pill and when its done using the daily edible products it can cause some deviation from the results and thus it can be concluded that a close detailed description of the study need to looked at and then after we can draw a solid conclusion.
Also it is quite absurd that such a wide generalisation is made, assuming the study to be commensurate with the all the scientific norms it is questionable to a large extant that whatever applies for old french women in there eighties must be true for the whole mankind. Since it can be very well true that the way the digestive system of those few french ladies worked and helped them lower the rate of hip fractures might not be the case with a small three old kid beacuse his body might not be able to digest those extra vitamins and it can cause him some major problems. Therefore invading more about different condtions, type of people and different methods can really understand the true functuing of how fracture risks can be lessened.
Thirdly if these women showed much lower rate of hip fractures than what is average for their age doesn't clearly tell us that it reduces fracture risks for all bones and the intake of double vitamin D and calcium was the reason behind it, beacuse there can be several reasons why these women showed less risk towards hip factured, firstly it can be true that doubling the dose of vitamin D and calcium was the reason for it but it cannot be said with authority for all the 206 bones present and also the author has mentioned that during the study these women participated in a light weightlifting program which can also be a reason for the lower risk of hip fracture since it might be passuible that due to lifting of weights and exercising it lowered the rate of risk of hip fractures. Therefore it cannot be clearly stated that all bones are showing less rate of hip fractures than what is average for their age.
Finally it can be concluded that author's conclusion can be easily challenged and we need to dig down a bit more before we can draw any results out of the study.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 245, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ose of Vitamin D and calcium daily. The authors conclusion is full of fault and need to...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...fter we can draw a solid conclusion. Also it is quite absurd that such a wide gen...
^^^^
Line 5, column 576, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...d it can cause him some major problems. Therefore invading more about different condtions...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 99, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ures than what is average for their age doesnt clearly tell us that it reduces fractur...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 788, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ered the rate of risk of hip fractures. Therefore it cannot be clearly stated that all bo...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
... than what is average for their age. Finally it can be concluded that authors conclu...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, if, look, really, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.9520958084 193% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 28.8173652695 153% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 16.3942115768 24% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2264.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 496.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.56451612903 5.12650576532 89% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71922212354 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45174553971 2.78398813304 88% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.459677419355 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 714.6 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 19.7664670659 56% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 45.0 22.8473053892 197% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 181.981699198 57.8364921388 315% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 205.818181818 119.503703932 172% => OK
Words per sentence: 45.0909090909 23.324526521 193% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.18181818182 5.70786347227 161% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => 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: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.193373769818 0.218282227539 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0855187642697 0.0743258471296 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.115371135694 0.0701772020484 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11792648126 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0965321909721 0.0628817314937 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 22.6 14.3799401198 157% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.5 12.197005988 152% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.06 12.5979740519 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 20.0 11.1389221557 180% => OK
text_standard: 23.0 11.9071856287 193% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.