"Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates, for the past several decades, food-processing companies have also been adding salicylates to foods as preservatives. This rise in the commercial use of salicylates has been found to correlate with a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in our twenty-year study. Recently, food-processing companies have found that salicylates can also be used as flavor additives for foods. With this new use for salicylates, we can expect a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The author of the argument concludes that with the new use of salicylates as a food preservative and flavor additives for food will continue a steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the citizens of Mentia. The author has provided some assumptions to bolster his argument. The argument seems to be valid at first glance but when we analyze the argument in detail, this argument is not logically convincing, as it is rife with holes and unwarranted assumptions.
Firstly, the author state that salicylates are from the same chemical family as Aspirin, here the author made a bad comparison because it is not necessary that aspirin and salicylates must have same properties even though they belong to the same chemical family there outcomes might be different. It is not mentioned by the author about the chemical composition of the salicylates, its severity to treat the headache, and about the side effects of salicylates if taken in high dosages. Thus, the author should provide more information about the salicylates, its composition and effects on health of an individual to strengthen the argument.
Additionally, the author states that many foods are naturally rich in salicylates and many food processing companies are adding salicylates to the foods as a preservative, but he failed to mention which food has salicylates and to which food the companies are adding the salicylates. Also, the amount of salicylates composition is not mentioned anywhere. Therefore this assumption is flawed, here the author should provide more information about the foods containing salicylates and composition of it.
Further, the author claim that because of the rise in the commercial use of salicylates there is a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants. This assumption may be flawed on the statistical grounds because the author does not mention anything about the study conducted, whether it was conducted for 100 people or for the 1000 people. Moreover, it is assumed that the decline in headaches is due to rise of salicylates but there might be other factors responsible for it, such as, the people are practicing meditation, they might taking additional treatments for headaches, and it is also possible that they might be applying some ointment to relieve pain. Unless this information is not provided the argument is not fully verified and reliable.
Lastly, the author states that food-processing companies are adding salicylates as flavor additives for foods. Even if they add it in food, there might be still other factors responsible for their headaches. For instance, people are possibly stressed due to their workloads, there might be a heredity problem for some people, and because there is a lot of noise pollution in the city they get affected by headaches. If these are the factors responsible for their headaches then it is possible that the people will suffer from headache further also, thus adding salicylates to food is not a good move. The author should provide the exact reasons for headache of the people.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands, now is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author mentions further about the composition of salicylates, other factors responsible for the reduction in headaches, etc then it will be possible to fully evaluate the reliability of the proposed conclusion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 288, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...me assumptions to bolster his argument. The argument seems to be valid at first gla...
^^^
Line 5, column 87, Rule ID: MANY_FEW_UNCOUNTABLE[2]
Message: Use 'much' or 'little' with uncountable nouns.
Suggestion: much; little
...s are naturally rich in salicylates and many food processing companies are adding sa...
^^^^
Line 5, column 87, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun food seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much food', 'a good deal of food'.
Suggestion: much food; a good deal of food
...s are naturally rich in salicylates and many food processing companies are adding salicyl...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 356, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
... composition is not mentioned anywhere. Therefore this assumption is flawed, here the aut...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, lastly, may, moreover, so, still, then, therefore, thus, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.5258426966 169% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 12.9106741573 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2881.0 2235.4752809 129% => OK
No of words: 551.0 442.535393258 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22867513612 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84493438435 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97321106853 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.406533575318 0.4932671777 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 927.0 704.065955056 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 12.0 4.99550561798 240% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.5915076622 60.3974514979 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.05 118.986275619 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.55 23.4991977007 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.2 5.21951772744 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => 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 : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.324595160138 0.243740707755 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10428113199 0.0831039109588 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103286446656 0.0758088955206 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175785753335 0.150359130593 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.110408943174 0.0667264976115 165% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 14.1392134831 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.8420337079 73% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 100.480337079 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.