The following appeared in a memorandum from the mayor of Wistfold:
"A recent study revealed that the number of children requiring medical attention for illnesses in our town is 40 percent higher than in the neighboring town of Champsfield. Last year the Champsfield school district implemented an educational program called "Kerzac Plus" that promotes healthier habits among children. Because prepackaged convenience foods have less nutritional value than fresh fruits and vegetables, Kerzac Plus guidance led to banning the sale of candy bars and soft drinks in Champsfield schools. Kerzac Plus also provides informational posters and live presentations for children that explain the importance of healthy foods and exercise, as well as the risks of making unhealthy lifestyle choices. The clearest explanation for the lower medical needs of Champsfield's children compared with Wistfold's is the introduction of the Kerzac Plus program to promote student health."
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.
In the memorandum from the mayor of Wistfold, it is argued that the lower number of children requiring medical attention in the neighboring town of Champsfield, compared to Wistfold, is primarily attributed to the implementation of the educational program called "Kerzac Plus" in Champsfield schools. However, there are alternative explanations that could potentially challenge this proposed explanation. These alternative explanations include socioeconomic factors, healthcare accessibility, and genetic predispositions, each of which can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
Firstly, socioeconomic factors could play a significant role in the disparity between the two towns. It is possible that Champsfield has a higher average income level compared to Wistfold, resulting in better access to healthcare facilities and healthier food options for its residents. Higher-income families may have the means to provide their children with nutritious meals and access to private healthcare, leading to a lower incidence of illnesses. In contrast, Wistfold may have a lower average income, which could contribute to a higher prevalence of illnesses among its children.
Another alternative explanation is healthcare accessibility. It is plausible that Champsfield has better healthcare infrastructure, including hospitals, clinics, and medical professionals, which allows for prompt medical attention and preventive care for its residents. In contrast, Wistfold may have limited healthcare resources, leading to delayed or inadequate medical treatment for children with illnesses. This disparity in healthcare accessibility could account for the higher number of children requiring medical attention in Wistfold compared to Champsfield.
Furthermore, genetic predispositions can also be a plausible explanation for the difference in medical needs between the two towns. It is possible that certain genetic factors or hereditary conditions are more prevalent in Wistfold, making its children more susceptible to illnesses. These genetic predispositions could include allergies, autoimmune disorders, or other underlying health conditions that increase the likelihood of medical attention being required. Champsfield, on the other hand, may have a population with a lower prevalence of such genetic factors, resulting in a lower number of children requiring medical attention.
In conclusion, while the memorandum suggests that the implementation of the Kerzac Plus program in Champsfield schools is the primary explanation for the lower number of children requiring medical attention compared to Wistfold, alternative explanations exist that can plausibly account for the presented facts. Socioeconomic factors, healthcare accessibility, and genetic predispositions are all factors that should be considered when evaluating the difference in medical needs between the two towns. Further investigation and analysis would be necessary to determine the most significant factors contributing to the observed disparity.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-26 | tomlee0205 | 66 | view |
| 2023-08-26 | tomlee0205 | 60 | view |
| 2023-02-07 | pavithra ramesh | 69 | view |
| 2022-12-29 | Kuldip851 | 73 | view |
| 2022-09-28 | killer | 73 | view |
- The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine In 1975 a wildlife census found that there were seven species of amphibians in Xanadu National Park with abundant numbers of each species However in 2002 only four species of amphibians 54
- Fifteen years ago Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors Since that time Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes and overall student 66
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing an 50
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the manager of WWAC radio station To reverse a decline in listener numbers our owners have decided that WWAC must change from its current rock music format The decline has occurred despite population growth in o 67
- Teachers salaries should be based on the academic performance of their students 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 you take In developing and 67
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, so, while, in conclusion, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2635.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 420.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 6.27380952381 5.12650576532 122% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52701905584 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.44537795484 2.78398813304 124% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.433333333333 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 808.2 705.55239521 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.59920159681 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 0.0 8.76447105788 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.9867817451 57.8364921388 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.388888889 119.503703932 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3333333333 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.33333333333 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.25308455916 0.218282227539 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0855803918016 0.0743258471296 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0894245325186 0.0701772020484 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161042194282 0.128457276422 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0516718406045 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.8 14.3799401198 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 22.75 48.3550499002 47% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 19.38 12.5979740519 154% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 20.0 11.9071856287 168% => 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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, so, while, in conclusion, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2635.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 420.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 6.27380952381 5.12650576532 122% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52701905584 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.44537795484 2.78398813304 124% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.433333333333 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 808.2 705.55239521 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.59920159681 119% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 0.0 8.76447105788 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.9867817451 57.8364921388 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.388888889 119.503703932 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3333333333 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.33333333333 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.25308455916 0.218282227539 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0855803918016 0.0743258471296 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0894245325186 0.0701772020484 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161042194282 0.128457276422 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0516718406045 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.8 14.3799401198 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 22.75 48.3550499002 47% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 19.38 12.5979740519 154% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 20.0 11.9071856287 168% => 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.