The author of the passage argues that the government of Tagus should put their effort to promote the new type of millet to combat vitamin A deficiency. While it seems to be rational ways to improve people's health status, however, the author relies on some unjustified assumptions; thus it is necessary to ask some questions to make the author's argument understandable.
First, the author assumes that the benefits of introducing the new type of millet outweighs the cost of that. However, there is no specific evidence to prove it. In other words, The government's subsidy would exceed the cost of other measures. The expenditure can be used to implement other policies to solve the people's vitamin A's problem. For example, it might be better for the government to buy a supplement for vitamin A to the people directly. Like this, the author should analyze the cost and benefits to assert his or her claim. To be specific, considering the situation of the impoverished nation of Tagus, the author should answer this question: "the benefits of this method exceeds the benefits of alternatives measure?"
Secondly, the author presumes that vitamin A deficiency is harmful and deleterious problem for people and it should be handled by the government of Tagus. Even if people are low in vitamin A, it might not cause any serious health problems to their health. Furthermore, deficiency of vitamin A might be fixed by people themselves without help by the government. For example, if the problem is originated from just short-term and temporary natural disaster, it might be settled naturally. Therefore, the author should provide the answer to the question: Is it a really serious and emergent problem to a significant degree?
Lastly, the author supposed that the new millet might grow well based on the fact that millet is already a staple food in Tagus. However, it might not be the case. Because, the new millet is invented by the international development organization, which is totally new type for Tagus. Even if farmers easily cultivate original type of millet, no one guarantee that new type of millet might be fit for the environment of Tagus. To make it the best choice, the author should expound on how similar they are and how suitable the new millet can grow. It is logical to ask the author this question: Is Tagus suitable to grow the new type of millet?
Consequently, the author claims that to increase vitamin A among people, the government of Tagus should introduce the new type of millet by all means. However, the author relies on several invalid assumptions. Thus, to make the author's claim clear and pursuable, the author should answer some questions related to the cost of this new policy, the degree of the problem, and the environment of the new millet.
- CLAIM Young people s tendency to make extensive use of portable devices like smartphones and tablets has hurt their development of social skills REASON These devices encourage users to form artificial personalities and relationships online rather than ful 63
- Workers in the small town of Leeville take fewer sick days than workers in the large city of Masonton 50 miles away Moreover relative to population size the diagnosis of stress related illness is proportionally much lower in Leeville than in Masonton 58
- The Mozart School of Music should be the first choice for parents considering enrolling their child in music lessons First of all the Mozart School welcomes youngsters at all ability and age levels there is no audition to attend the school Second the scho 78
- All students should be required to take the driver s education course at Centerville High School In the past two years several accidents in and around Centerville have involved teenage drivers Since a number of parents in Centerville have complained th 68
- In order to improve the quality of instruction at the college and university level all faculty should be required to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach 66
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 468 350
No. of Characters: 2254 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.651 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.816 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.638 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 181 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.348 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.197 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.696 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.358 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.532 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.12 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 337, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ssary to ask some questions to make the authors argument understandable. First, the ...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 184, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'governments'' or 'government's'?
Suggestion: governments'; government's
...idence to prove it. In other words, The governments subsidy would exceed the cost of other ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 314, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...o implement other policies to solve the peoples vitamin As problem. For example, it mig...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, really, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2323.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 468.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96367521368 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65116196802 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77028822666 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.433760683761 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 729.9 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 18.0 8.76447105788 205% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.0871732094 57.8364921388 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.590909091 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2727272727 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.45454545455 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.376412261637 0.218282227539 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.125692591977 0.0743258471296 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.091763820529 0.0701772020484 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.223263755025 0.128457276422 174% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0685774131248 0.0628817314937 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.