An ancient, traditional remedy for insomnia—the scent of lavender flowers—has now been proved effective. In a recent study, 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia slept each night for three weeks on lavender-scented pillows in a controlled room where their sleep was monitored electronically. During the first week, volunteers continued to take their usual sleeping medication. They slept soundly but wakened feeling tired. At the beginning of the second week, the volunteers discontinued their sleeping medication. During that week, they slept less soundly than the previous week and felt even more tired. During the third week, the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than in the previous two weeks. Therefore, the study proves that lavender cures insomnia within a short period of time.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The arguer asserts that on the basis of the experiment, the scent of lavender flowers has now been proved effective. While it is maybe true at first glance, but there are a myriad of evidence still in great need of solidifying the argument. The reasons are as follows.
For one thing, the arguer stands on the point that when the volunteers stopped taking their usual sleeping medication, the former medication will have no effect on them. Whereas, the arguer provide no sufficient evidence to bolster this view. It is entirely possible that the former medication will have a continuous influence on volunteers. If there is a continuous effect from former medication, it is obvious that this experiment could not eliminate the alternative that it is likely that longer sleep is a contribution from former medication instead of lavender scent. For example, if I take the medicine to cure my headache, it will take weeks to get rid of some side effects such as diarrhea after I stopped taking this medicine. The argument is undoubtedly defective unless the arguer provide more applicable evidence to lend significant support to his or her view.
For another, the arguer's conclusion is based on the experiment in a recent study, which includes 30 volunteers and only one controlled room. However, the arguer provides neither scientific evidence nor applicable example to convince us this experiment is tenable. It is entirely possible that this study is conducted by some undergraduate students who is callow and unfamiliar with the right experiment methods. It is obvious that this experiment have only 30 volunteers which is insufficient for getting rid of randomness and coincidence. Moreover, this recent study lacks the blank control group. Lacking credible evidence, the arguer could buttress the argument.
What's more, even if the arguer could presents sufficient evidence to prove that the former medication have no later effect and the experiment is effective to draw a final conclusion, the arguer simply assume that with a two weeks result from a recent study will cure the insomnia forever. It is reasonable to doubt the argument. It is as possible that the lavender-scented pillows only works for a short few weeks since the scent will dissipate quickly. For example, many flower's scent will dissipate in the air quickly so we might not smell too much cheerful scent in the spring. Without ruling out this alternative, the argument is obviously untenable.
All in all, the argument is not based on sufficient evidence and sound reasoning both of which is essential to convince us the soundness of his or her view. In order to draw a convincing conclusion, the arguer should reason more soundly and presents more evidence.
- Leaders are created by the demands that are placed on them. 33
- An ancient, traditional remedy for insomnia—the scent of lavender flowers—has now been proved effective. In a recent study, 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia slept each night for three weeks on lavender-scented pillows in a controlled room where the 66
- The president of Grove College has recommended that the college abandon its century-old tradition of all-female education and begin admitting men. Pointing to other all-female colleges that experienced an increase in applications after adopting coeducatio 83
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. 16
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 174, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'myriads'?
Suggestion: myriads
...e true at first glance, but there are a myriad of evidence still in great need of soli...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 171, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whereas” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...medication will have no effect on them. Whereas, the arguer provide no sufficient evide...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 18, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
...o his or her view. For another, the arguers conclusion is based on the experiment i...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
...arguer could buttress the argument. Whats more, even if the arguer could presents...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 38, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'present'
Suggestion: present
... Whats more, even if the arguer could presents sufficient evidence to prove that the f...
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'still', 'whereas', 'while', 'for example', 'such as', 'for one thing']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.220858895706 0.25644967241 86% => OK
Verbs: 0.147239263804 0.15541462614 95% => OK
Adjectives: 0.108384458078 0.0836205057962 130% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0552147239264 0.0520304965353 106% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0429447852761 0.0272364105082 158% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.114519427403 0.125424944231 91% => OK
Participles: 0.0245398773006 0.0416121511921 59% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.81356272439 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0224948875256 0.026700313972 84% => OK
Particles: 0.00204498977505 0.001811407834 113% => OK
Determiners: 0.130879345603 0.113004496875 116% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0224948875256 0.0255425247493 88% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0122699386503 0.0127820249294 96% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2746.0 2731.13054187 101% => OK
No of words: 448.0 446.07635468 100% => OK
Chars per words: 6.12946428571 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60065326758 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.377232142857 0.378187486979 100% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.290178571429 0.287650121315 101% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.232142857143 0.208842608468 111% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.142857142857 0.135150697306 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81356272439 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 207.018472906 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.482142857143 0.469332199767 103% => OK
Word variations: 54.0816762623 52.1807786196 104% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 20.3636363636 23.2022227129 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.0558472934 57.7814097925 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.818181818 141.986410481 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3636363636 23.2022227129 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.590909090909 0.724660767414 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 49.3814935065 51.9672348444 95% => OK
Elegance: 1.46666666667 1.8405768891 80% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.296955059894 0.441005458295 67% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.109566524838 0.135418324435 81% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0846411765797 0.0829849096947 102% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.540583637785 0.58762219726 92% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.124167669303 0.147661913831 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.1188998478 0.193483328276 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0833978541062 0.0970749176394 86% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.418024396142 0.42659136922 98% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0560924235644 0.0774707102158 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.210841725882 0.312017818177 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.066930319116 0.0698173142475 96% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.33743842365 48% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.87684729064 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 2.0 6.46551724138 31% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 14.657635468 89% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.