Like many indigent population, people of Tagus is currently suffering from vitamin A deficiency. An international development organization has engineered a solution and the author argues in favor of promoting that solution. The argument presented by the author contains some flawed assumptions and reasonings, which needs to be clarified to make the recommendation cogent.
Firstly, the author mentions that the new millet developed by international development organization is high in vitamin A. But the quantification is not provided. The difference between the level of vitamin A in the new breed and current breed might be very small and unable to mitigate the vitamin deficiency among people of Tagus. Also, the stated argument fails to present any data regarding if there is any side effects of the new breed. If there is no study performed on the side effects of new breed, it can cause more harm than good for the people. To make the argument strong, the author need to provide more information about these issues.
In addition to the health issue, economic condition of Tagus needs in depth consideration. Tagus is already an impoverished country. Do they have the ability to subsidize the farming of the new variety of millet? What if, introducing this higher cost millet breed make the economy of the country imballanced which needs to address other priority issues? These are not discussed in the excerpt given. An accurate and detailed cost benefit study needs to be done before taking the decision of promoting the new type of millet by the government.
The argument is weakened by not only by economic issue but also another flawed assumption by the author. It is assumed that there is practically no difference between new breed of millet and current millet; people are like to eat the new breed once introduced. The new breed of millet might differ in taste and hence people might reject this alternatives. Then the aim to reduce the vitamin deficiency among people will not be possible by this recommendation.
Finally, there might be other source of vitamin A in Tagus which doesn't need this much amount of effort by government to promote. Was any research done to find the alternatives? Also, how the new breed of millet performs against those alternatives? This questions must be answered with corroboration if the author wants to strengthen his recommendation.
While the aim by the international organization in undoubtedly beneficial to the people of Tagus, the author needs to provide more evidence to strengthen his position of promoting this new breeds of millet. Only then, we would be able to evaluate if the recommendations is like have predicted result in the life of people of Tagus.
- It has recently been announced that a new movie theater may be built in your neighborhood. Do you support or oppose this plan? Why? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer. 76
- TOEFL integrated writing: fuel-cell engines 80
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 50
- People today spend too much time on personal enjoyment-doing things they like to do-rather than doing things they should do. 70
- TPO-01 - Independent Writing Task Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?At universities and colleges, sports and social activities are just as important as classes and libraries and should receive equal financial support.Use specific reaso 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 338, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... in taste and hence people might reject this alternatives. Then the aim to reduce th...
^^^^
Line 9, column 66, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ther source of vitamin A in Tagus which doesnt need this much amount of effort by gove...
^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'if', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'in addition']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.265979381443 0.25644967241 104% => OK
Verbs: 0.162886597938 0.15541462614 105% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0845360824742 0.0836205057962 101% => OK
Adverbs: 0.039175257732 0.0520304965353 75% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0123711340206 0.0272364105082 45% => OK
Prepositions: 0.131958762887 0.125424944231 105% => OK
Participles: 0.0494845360825 0.0416121511921 119% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.94890059073 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.039175257732 0.026700313972 147% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.131958762887 0.113004496875 117% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0164948453608 0.0255425247493 65% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0103092783505 0.0127820249294 81% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2725.0 2731.13054187 100% => OK
No of words: 447.0 446.07635468 100% => OK
Chars per words: 6.09619686801 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59808378696 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.369127516779 0.378187486979 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.270693512304 0.287650121315 94% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.190156599553 0.208842608468 91% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.127516778523 0.135150697306 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94890059073 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 207.018472906 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.474272930649 0.469332199767 101% => OK
Word variations: 52.9157043233 52.1807786196 101% => OK
How many sentences: 25.0 20.039408867 125% => OK
Sentence length: 17.88 23.2022227129 77% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.3733377367 57.7814097925 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.0 141.986410481 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.88 23.2022227129 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.48 0.724660767414 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 44.9493512304 51.9672348444 86% => OK
Elegance: 2.08653846154 1.8405768891 113% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.515342103906 0.441005458295 117% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0998365933045 0.135418324435 74% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0748472587382 0.0829849096947 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.545615946388 0.58762219726 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.148475587004 0.147661913831 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.195270716467 0.193483328276 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103758918883 0.0970749176394 107% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.463424972873 0.42659136922 109% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0592563306061 0.0774707102158 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.355685972312 0.312017818177 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.04853559447 0.0698173142475 70% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.33743842365 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 13.0 6.46551724138 201% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 21.0 14.657635468 143% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.