The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council. "An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. This shows that eating a substantial amount of fish can clearly prevent colds. Furthermore, since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, attendance levels will improve. Therefore, we recommend the daily use of a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The author recommends the daily use of a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism because in in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds, concluding attendance levels will improve, since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work. The author’s argument is unconvincing due to several reasons.
To begin with, the author fails to provide any data and rigorous proof of the study conducted in nearby East Meria. We don’t know the sample space, the conditions under which the study was conducted and other several factors which may play a significant role in concluding the cause of lesser visits to the doctor. Due to lack of evidence this assumption of author’s doesn’t seem reasonable. This nullifies the author’s argument and it cannot be concluded that that eating a substantial amount of fish can clearly prevent colds.
Secondly, author assumes that cold is the major reason of absenteeism from schools and workplace. The given information provides no evidence in support of this assumption. Other chronic diseases like cough, headache, stomachache, etc. can also be the reason of absenteeism in the school and workplace. This assumption isn’t plausible due to lack of evidence.
Furthermore, another assumption of the author that eating fish in large amount would prevent cold is fallacious. The author fails to take in account various other factors which might be responsible for lesser visits to the doctor like weather, personal habits, hygiene which play a significant role in well-being of a person. It doesn’t seem plausible to conclude from the given information that high fish consumption is the cause of decreasing visits to the doctor.
To sum up, the author needs to provide more evidence in support of his conclusion that the daily use of a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. He needs to provide more information about the study claiming that eating a substantial amount of fish can clearly prevent colds.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 148, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: in
...ent colds and lower absenteeism because in in nearby East Meria, where fish consumpti...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 550, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ount of fish can clearly prevent colds. Secondly, author assumes that cold is th...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, if, may, second, secondly, so, well, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 33.0505617978 48% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1871.0 2235.4752809 84% => OK
No of words: 356.0 442.535393258 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25561797753 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.55969084622 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89050676394 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 215.323595506 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.460674157303 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 559.8 704.065955056 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => 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: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 87.6018826496 60.3974514979 145% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.9375 118.986275619 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.25 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.21951772744 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0616969877348 0.243740707755 25% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0233360235169 0.0831039109588 28% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0310904874257 0.0758088955206 41% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0391656690141 0.150359130593 26% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0217889579782 0.0667264976115 33% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.1392134831 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.97 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 100.480337079 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 11.8971910112 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.