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.
Salicylates, as mentioned seem to be an overall useful medication and altrnative to current aspirins since they contain the same chemical families. The writer has presented some intresting research results and an intresting prediction of the future. However, to validate this prediction, we need to examine the facts presented around the participants, as well as the processes, and other ingredients involved in the processing of future meals.
Firstly, a more elaborate look needs to be taken into demographics of the participants. There wasn't any information around the age, fitness levels, job types and health levels of these participants. A 20-year span is a really long period, so, were the participants who started the survey the same as those who are part of the survey now? And would that dataset be congruient in the future? Hw was this data collected? The writer mentioned that they were reported. Basing strictly on reported data alone might be flawed becasue data that wasn't reported never gets captured. Without taking these into consideration, one cannot be sure of the writer's future predictions.
Secondly, to ensure that the writer's prediction holds water, one would need to consider some other factors. One which stands out are the food choices of the participating candidates. It is arguable, unless stated, that their meals might not contain the said ingredient, Salicylates. The participants due to their lifestyle choices might have considered other food choices and since there wasn't any mention, insight or consideration on this, the furture prediction of the writer seems flawed.
Furthermore, in general, processed food has always been known not to be a healthy choice. Hence, looking forward towards the future, the writer needs to address the components of future food-processing. The writer would need to crucially examine the components of what these future processed food would contain. The writer also needs to perfom adequate research and give strong results around the effects and consequences of mixing salicylates and other ingredients and if this mix would still guarantee its potency.
In conclusion, the writer has done a good job of presenting the therapautic effect of salicylates and how its addition to food processing has been positively rewarding, however, the writer needs to present more data around the participants and address the concerns around the ingredients of future foods to make a more solid argument for the postulated future predictions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 94, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...demographics of the participants. There wasnt any information around the age, fitness...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 537, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...alone might be flawed becasue data that wasnt reported never gets captured. Without t...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 30, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...dictions. Secondly, to ensure that the writers prediction holds water, one would need ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 388, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...ered other food choices and since there wasnt any mention, insight or consideration o...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, really, second, secondly, so, still, well, in conclusion, in general, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 58.6224719101 78% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2110.0 2235.4752809 94% => OK
No of words: 392.0 442.535393258 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38265306122 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44960558625 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94185195406 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 215.323595506 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.520408163265 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 653.4 704.065955056 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 74.0649039694 60.3974514979 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.5 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.05 5.21951772744 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0440723507942 0.243740707755 18% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0119843042331 0.0831039109588 14% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0261834963272 0.0758088955206 35% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0285697513111 0.150359130593 19% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0187324335006 0.0667264976115 28% => 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: 13.7 14.1392134831 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.