The following appeared in the editorial section of a health and fitness magazine.
"In a study of the effects of exercise on longevity, medical researchers tracked 500 middle-aged men over a 20-year period. The subjects represented a variety of occupations in several different parts of the country and responded to an annual survey in which they were asked: How often and how strenuously do you exercise? Of those who responded, the men who reported that they engaged in vigorous outdoor exercise nearly every day lived longer than the men who reported that they exercised mildly only once or twice a week. Given the clear link that this study establishes between longevity and exercise, doctors should not recommend moderate exercise to their patients but should instead encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis."
The editorial introduces the study of 500 middle-aged men for 20 years to examine the effects of exercising on life longevity. According to the statement, the medical researchers relied on a survey, which was supposed to be filled by these men annually, asking about their exercising routines. As the survey resulted that the vigorous exercisers lived longer, the writer concludes that the doctors should encourage their patients for daily vigorous outdoor exercises rather than the moderate ones. Though, the medical researchers played a role for the support of the conclusion, still the statement fails to provide valuable justifications, questioning the rudimentary elements on the whole study.
Firstly, the assertion fails to clarify the number of respondents researchers had over the 20 year time period. Also, if they were receiving accurate answers or not, there was no way to find that out. If the responses received are not accurate, the whole study will be questioned. Moreover, the writer fails to answer that on what basis do the researchers consider these responders dead. Because if they are relying on the responses, and if someone doesn't answer for a few years, that means they are dead according to the researchers, then there might be a possibility that the whole study is false. Additionally, the ratio of deaths over the years is missing which weakens the study case.
Secondly, the writer does not mention anything about the participants. Only the number of participants is provided. There is no clarification on what basis are these men chosen. If it was a random selection, or do any of them have any kind of similarities. The editorial fails to introduce these participants, as the reader has no knowledge of their residential, occupational and health conditions. There might be a possibility that some of the participants have lived longer because of their jobs or some might be dead because of some unfortunate accidents.
Thirdly, twenty-year time period is very less to conclude such studies. That is, studying only 500 subjects and that too without the proper knowledge of the reasons of their death, it is difficult to conclude anything. For such studies, more subjects should be needed for a long period of time. Additionally, there are chances that someone might lie in these surveys. Or it might be possible that some might have exercised vigorously for half year or less, and they have answered something else during the survey. So, for the accurate results surveying cannot be considered one of the precise ways of study.
At the end, suppose the survey is faultless and the researchers have definite knowledge of the living and the dead subjects, still, it does not conclude that the doctors should encourage their patients to do vigorous outdoor exercises instead of the moderate ones. As neither the medical researchers nor the results of the survey comment anything on the moderate exercising routines.
Concluding my opinion, the editorial reflects a facetious image of the researchers as it talks about the survey without proper knowledge. One of the weakening points of the editorial is that it lacks the genuine results and conveys the wrong conclusion which is not even mentioned in the researcher's study. To strengthen the argument, a 20-year time period is way less, and the subjects are also not enough. Validated results of the survey, number of deaths and alive, and reasons of death might have given a bit of value to the statement, still couldn't prove the conclusion of advising moderate or vigorous outdoor exercises to the patients.
- Businesses should hire the employees for their entire lives. Agree or disagree? 68
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Countries should not isolate themselves from the world but instead engage other countries. Use examples and reasons to support your position. 73
- Learning about the past has no value for those of us living in the present. Do you agree or disagree? 70
- The following appeared in the editorial section of a health and fitness magazine. "In a study of the effects of exercise on longevity, medical researchers tracked 500 middle-aged men over a 20-year period. The subjects represented a variety of occup 53
- “If we want to save money on municipal garbage disposal fees, we need to encourage our residents to recycle more. Late last year, our neighboring town, Hayesworth, passed a law requiring that all households recycle paper and glass, or pay a fine. Since 42
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 587 350
No. of Characters: 2934 1500
No. of Different Words: 245 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.922 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.998 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.749 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 213 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 168 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 122 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 79 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.964 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.155 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.464 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.262 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.484 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.057 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 699, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...udimentary elements on the whole study. Firstly, the assertion fails to clarify ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 450, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...elying on the responses, and if someone doesnt answer for a few years, that means they...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 691, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s missing which weakens the study case. Secondly, the writer does not mention an...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 434, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ions. There might be a possibility that some of the participants have lived longer because ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 560, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... because of some unfortunate accidents. Thirdly, twenty-year time period is very...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 280, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...re subjects should be needed for a long period of time. Additionally, there are chances that s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 21, column 547, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
... a bit of value to the statement, still couldnt prove the conclusion of advising modera...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, kind of, on the whole
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3027.0 2260.96107784 134% => OK
No of words: 585.0 441.139720559 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17435897436 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9180050066 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83902549235 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 204.123752495 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.437606837607 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 934.2 705.55239521 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.7846167809 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.107142857 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8928571429 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.85714285714 5.70786347227 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.199267220866 0.218282227539 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0591386686332 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0740134151196 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107698787546 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0550452008242 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 98.500998004 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.