The following appeared in the Health section of the Greenhorne Gazette:
“Motilac is a substance that occurs naturally in the human digestive tract. Many
consumers of dietary supplements containing motilac report significant easing of digestive
discomfort after just a few weeks of use. Among Greenhorne residents, the consumption
of motilac supplements has increased 80% over the last seven years. Last year,
Greenhorne’s five hospitals reported fewer cases of serious gastrointestinal disorders than
any year on record. Meanwhile, sales of motilac supplements are declining in the
neighboring town of Etolin. Notably, hospitals in Etolin report a steady increase in the last
two years in patients experiencing a wide range of distressing gastrointestinal symptoms.
The clear explanation of these trends is that motilac is effective in preventing many
serious gastrointestinal disorders."
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could
rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account
for the facts presented in the argument.
The argument presented is not convincing. The author concludes that consumption of Motilac is effective in preventing many serious gastrointestinal disorders based on the trends of two neighbouring residencies and fails to acknowledge several key factors on the basis of which the conclusion could be evaluated such as the duration for which Metilac has been consumed, occurrence of an epidemic and the lack of details of the data used to arrive at the conclusion cast doubts on the author's conclusion. Thereby, resulting in a logical gap between the premise and the conclusion.
Firstly, the author readily assumes that the consumption of Motilac has helped reduce gastrointestinal issues. However, the author overlooks the duration for which Motilac has been consumed. As per the argument, consumption of Motilac in Greenhorne has increased by 80% over a span of eight years. The author fails to mention the time it takes for Motilac to start showing its effects in order to address the gastrointestinal issues. For example, if the medicine must show immediate results, it would be naive to suggest that the drop in gastrointestinal cases were due to the consumption of Motilac. As a result, the contention of the author suggesting Motilac has reduced gastrointestinal issues does not have any concrete evidence.
Secondly, the argument fails to mention an epidemic that could have occurred in Etolin. A key concept omitted in the argument. To illustrate, consider a situation in which due to unfavourable reasons, a widespread gastrointestinal epidemic occurs. In such a circumstance, a reduction in the consumption of Motilac does not play any concrete role in the increase of gastrointestinal diseases. The argument provides no information on such a circumstance. Thereby, implying the author's conclusion is based on more of a wishful thinking than on a substantive evidence.
Thirdly, the argument does not provide any information on the data used in order to arrive at the conclusion. What was the subset of the data used? Was the 80% figure significant enough to extrapolate the conclusion for a population size of Etolin? As no information is provided about these questions, the author fails to establish a proper correlation between the conclusion and the premise.
The author presents a surprising hypothesis. However, the data provided in order to validate the conclusion is inadequate. The long litany of unjustified assumptions seriously jeopardises the conclusion of the author. Thus, evidence supporting the duration span of consumption of medicines, absence of any obvious event causing gastrointestinal problem, and details about the data used to arrive at the conclusion would tighten the link between the premises and conclusion, making the reasoning more sound. Without any discussion of these ideas, however, it is impossible to evaluate the conclusion.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-18 | Xion5 | 55 | view |
| 2019-09-08 | AnilGuruprasad | 59 | view |
| 2019-09-07 | sweetylokeswari | 16 | view |
| 2019-08-29 | kelp | 33 | view |
| 2019-08-05 | teerapat | 69 | view |
- Company management should conduct routine monitoring of all employee e-mail correspondence. Such monitoring will reduce the waste of resources such as time and system capacity, as well as protect the company from lawsuits.Write a response in which you di 73
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position 66
- Some people believe that it is helpful to view a challenging situation as an opportunity forpersonal growth. Others believe that reimagining challenging situations this way occupiestoo much of the focus one needs to face challenges effectively. 50
- The following appeared in the Health section of the Greenhorne Gazette:“Motilac is a substance that occurs naturally in the human digestive tract. Manyconsumers of dietary supplements containing motilac report significant easing of digestivediscomfort a 59
- Some people believe that citizens can most benefit their communities by contributing timeand resources to volunteer efforts (e.g., town cleanups, youth sports leagues, food andclothing drives). Others believe that a community is better served when most of 66
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 24 15
No. of Words: 449 350
No. of Characters: 2377 1500
No. of Different Words: 198 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.603 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.294 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.221 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 187 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 159 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 74 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.708 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.984 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.417 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.322 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.51 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.085 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 484, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ve at the conclusion cast doubts on the authors conclusion. Thereby, resulting in a log...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 476, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...h a circumstance. Thereby, implying the authors conclusion is based on more of a wishfu...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, for example, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 28.8173652695 35% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 16.3942115768 195% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2447.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 449.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44988864143 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60321845022 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.3019648259 2.78398813304 119% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.452115812918 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 774.0 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 87.9349507054 57.8364921388 152% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.958333333 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7083333333 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.66666666667 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0718477030578 0.218282227539 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0233707920838 0.0743258471296 31% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0307606777796 0.0701772020484 44% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0399697600629 0.128457276422 31% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0424159471349 0.0628817314937 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.33 12.5979740519 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.