The international development organisation is persuading the government to proclaim a new variety of millet that is high in Vitamin A to ameliorate the impoverishment of Tagus' population.
To have the government promote the new millet variety, the organisation should being by publishing a list of nutrient deficiencies in the nation of Tagus.
Evaluating the percentage deficiency of Vitamin A along with the other nutrients helps the organisation substantiate its "impoverished" claim. It is not clear if people are deficient only in Vitamin A or if there are other serious deficiencies other than Vitamin A that need to be addressed. If it turns out that there are other deficiencies as well, it could mean that the organisation is not really interested in the betterment of the population and instead is trying to use the government to promote it's new product. In this report, the organisation should ideally specify the average levels of Vitamin A in a sample consisting of a representative population and the Vitamin A benefits offered by the new variety of millet to counter this deficiency.
On the other hand, the organisation states that the production costs for the millet are higher. However, it does not specify how much more the millet would cost compared to a popular millet variety. If it costs substantially more to consume the new variety, people would be better off spending the differential amount by purchasing vegetables or multivitamin pills that are rich in Vitamin A and other nutrients. It is not sufficiently substantiated as to why people should start consuming the newer variety instead of opting for vegetables or efficacious multivitamin capsules.
Furthermore, the production practices (use of pesticides, foreign agents to boost vitamin profile) need to examined. For example, if there is a high concentration of heavy metals found in the new millet variety, it could pose other serious health risks to the consumers. Additionally, lab studies should be performed to establish the efficacy and determine other side effects of the new variety. If the new millet variety offers a 10 % higher concentration of Vitamin A per unit over existing varieties, it may not be sufficient to fill the deficiency. Also, if there are serious side effects of the new variety, the project may have to be scrapped altogether, unless new investments are made to counter the side effects and to ensure no new side effects are being introduced.
Finally, it is stated that farmers will be paid subsidies to account for the higher cost of production. It is not clear who would fund this subsidy. If it is expected that the government should pay the farmers, the organisation should outline the revenue sharing model using which it would like to operate within Tagus.
Given the higher costs and the lack of evidence detailing the health benefits and risks of the new millet variety, it would be hard for the Government of Tagus to officially promote the new millet variety.
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. 83
- Issue Essay:-People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 16
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. 58
- Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition. 50
- Argument Topic: "The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. "According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 689, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'A benefit' or simply 'benefits'?
Suggestion: A benefit; Benefits
...presentative population and the Vitamin A benefits offered by the new variety of millet to...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'finally', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'really', 'so', 'well', 'as to', 'for example', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.24765478424 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.166979362101 0.15541462614 107% => OK
Adjectives: 0.101313320826 0.0836205057962 121% => OK
Adverbs: 0.046904315197 0.0520304965353 90% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0281425891182 0.0272364105082 103% => OK
Prepositions: 0.106941838649 0.125424944231 85% => OK
Participles: 0.0506566604128 0.0416121511921 122% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.16952704794 2.79052419416 114% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0393996247655 0.026700313972 148% => OK
Particles: 0.00375234521576 0.001811407834 207% => OK
Determiners: 0.108818011257 0.113004496875 96% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.031894934334 0.0255425247493 125% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0131332082552 0.0127820249294 103% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3002.0 2731.13054187 110% => OK
No of words: 490.0 446.07635468 110% => OK
Chars per words: 6.12653061224 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70488508055 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.381632653061 0.378187486979 101% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.29387755102 0.287650121315 102% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.2 0.208842608468 96% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.148979591837 0.135150697306 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16952704794 2.79052419416 114% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 207.018472906 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.418367346939 0.469332199767 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 47.0628584425 52.1807786196 90% => OK
How many sentences: 19.0 20.039408867 95% => OK
Sentence length: 25.7894736842 23.2022227129 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.8509134661 57.7814097925 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.0 141.986410481 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7894736842 23.2022227129 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.631578947368 0.724660767414 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.14285714286 136% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 55.1772287863 51.9672348444 106% => OK
Elegance: 1.67441860465 1.8405768891 91% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.371144012473 0.441005458295 84% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.1455624216 0.135418324435 107% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0821874788741 0.0829849096947 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.664522392715 0.58762219726 113% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.179850917369 0.147661913831 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.179414428571 0.193483328276 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0978884014746 0.0970749176394 101% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.451738161181 0.42659136922 106% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0760875203179 0.0774707102158 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.272333601401 0.312017818177 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0805904423842 0.0698173142475 115% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.33743842365 168% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.87684729064 29% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 13.0 6.46551724138 201% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 5.36822660099 37% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.