The following report 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. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds represent the most frequently given reason for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid — 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.
In the newsletter report, the author recommends the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, to prevent cold and therefore lower absenteeism. He/she reaches this conclusion by citing a report which states consumption of fish can prevent colds. However, to properly evaluate the author’s arguments, the following assumptions must be analyzed.
Citing the study’s report, the author wrongly assumes that what happens in East Meria also applies to West Meria. This is simply not true because they are two different places; it’s like comparing North Korea to South Korea. Therefore, the fact that cold is the major cause of absenteeism in East, doesn’t mean it’s the same cause of absenteeism in West Meria. Also, the author assumes the rate of absenteeism is also high in West Meria. While this may be true, there’s no direct evidence to back this up. For all we know, absenteeism in West Meria might currently be on an all-time low! If that’s true, the author’s argument is weakened and doesn’t hold water.
Likewise, the author concludes consuming diets rich in fish is the sole reason for the people of East Meria not experiencing much cold. What if that’s not the case? What if it’s because of a different factor or an amalgam of factors? For all we know it could be that East Meria is a hot region, therefore people seldom experience cold. If that is true, then the author’s stance is seriously undermined. Furthermore, the report doesn’t provide any concrete evidence to support its results. There’s no direct correlation as to why fish consumption is the reason for reduced cold for the people of East Meria. It merely just states people complain less of cold because fish consumption is high without any scientific or nutritional reason(s) to back this up. If truly the high consumption of fish is not the reason for reduced colds in East Meria, then the author’s suggestion of using Ichthaid to the inhabitants of West Meria is invalidated.
Lastly, the report states that cold as the most frequent excuse for absence from school and work. The implication of this is that the author believes the excuses given are true. What if most of the people that were absent from school and work lied about catching a cold? What if they were perfectly okay and are just lazy people? It’s also possible something else caused their absence such as a family emergency and they just felt citing cold as the reason is more convenient that going into details of why they were really absent. If that’s the case, then the author’s suggestion of using Ichthaid is weakened.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is deeply flawed because it is based on several baseless assumptions. To properly evaluate the author’s suggestion of using Ichthaid to prevent cold and hence absenteeism from school and work, the author has to provide concrete proof (maybe in form of a detailed research study) that indeed cold is the reason people missed school and work in East Meria and that consuming fish supplements can help combat this. Otherwise, the author’s current argument, as it stands, is flawed and doesn’t hold.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, hence, however, if, lastly, likewise, may, really, so, then, therefore, while, as to, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2652.0 2235.4752809 119% => OK
No of words: 526.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04182509506 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6414254641 2.79657885939 94% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.442965779468 0.4932671777 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 777.6 704.065955056 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 14.0 4.99550561798 280% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 59.2636803906 60.3974514979 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.2222222222 118.986275619 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4814814815 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.7037037037 5.21951772744 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 5.13820224719 234% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.148690350541 0.243740707755 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0458856714379 0.0831039109588 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.050021457517 0.0758088955206 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0914676851741 0.150359130593 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0431666614449 0.0667264976115 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.1392134831 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.8420337079 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.1639044944 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.79 8.38706741573 93% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 100.480337079 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.