The following is a letter from the parent of a private school student to the principal of that school:
Last year, Kensington Academy turned over management of its cafeteria to a private vendor, Swift Nutrition. This company serves low-fat, low-calorie meals that students do not find enjoyable – my son and several of his friends came home yesterday complaining about the lunch options. While the intent of hiring Swift may have been to cause students to eat healthier foods, the plan is just going to cause students to bring their own, less healthy lunches instead of eating cafeteria food. If Swift is not replaced with another vendor, there will be serious health consequences for Kensington students.
It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the argument to replace the Swift Nutrition with a new food vendor. However, in order to fully evaluate the argument, we need significant amount of additional evidence. The argument could end up being much weaker than it seems, or it might actually be quite valid. In order to make that determination, we need to know more and then analyze what we learn.
The first piece of evidence that we need to evaluate the argument is whether the new company which comes will provide the meals which attracts student. For example, when I was studying in the high school, there was a food vendor called Scoops. Scoops was really famous which used to provide variety of foods. Everyone at school used to like the food provided at Scoops. Scoops had a menu which used to provide only healthy food. The food included all nutrients. The food included all nutrients required for students. Thus, students had maintained a good health. Later, due to some problem, it was replaced by a new food vendor. They too provided the same food at same prices but the quality of food reduced when compared to Scoops. Although, students were attracted to this food since there was no change in the costs and also the taste. After all, taste matters a lot. This created serious health issues among students. Hence, the argument would have been more convincing if it had explicity mentioned what quality of food will be provided by the new food vendor.
Another piece of evidence that would help us is whether students eat the food from the new vendor. Also, Swift was providing healthy meals to students but students weren't attracted to these healthy food as they are used to less healthy food at home. Even if the new vendor provides a good quality food, students again will bring food from their and avoid eating at cafeteria. The new vendor should not only provide healthy food, they should also take care of student's food interests. By including the good nutrients in the food which students like will be a viable option as students not only eat their favorite food but also have a healthy meal. The information about the food which would be provided is not mentioned in the argument. The information about the food which would be provided by the new food vendor is missing in the argument as the food provided should be both healthy and tasty according to students' likes. Any evidence about the type of food provided by the new vendor will be helpful in evaluating the argument.
Clearly, then we need to have additional evidence in order to get a complete understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of argument.We need to know about the quality of food and the type of food provided by the new food vendor. And really we need more information if we want to extend our results.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-10-16 | Chaitanya02 | 70 | view |
| 2022-10-06 | asm01 | 66 | view |
| 2022-08-13 | VC3O | 58 | view |
| 2022-06-27 | Nalu00 | 43 | view |
| 2022-06-02 | ayushjhaveri | 68 | view |
- The following is a letter from the parent of a private school student to the principal of that school Last year Kensington Academy turned over management of its cafeteria to a private vendor Swift Nutrition This company serves low fat low calorie meals th 28
- 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 16
- Society consists of two groups one group which manages the mass and another group are the mass 66
- 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 83
- A pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting lethargy and other signs of illness After the recall the pet food company tested samples from the recalled food an 59
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 494 350
No. of Characters: 2268 1500
No. of Different Words: 199 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.714 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.591 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.306 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 28 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.643 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.541 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.643 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.355 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.48 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.223 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 165, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
... healthy meals to students but students werent attracted to these healthy food as they...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 136, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: We
...he strengths and weaknesses of argument.We need to know about the quality of food ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, hence, however, if, really, so, then, thus, after all, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2326.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 492.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.72764227642 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70967865282 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39353583941 2.78398813304 86% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.410569105691 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 706.5 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.594264778 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.0714285714 119.503703932 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5714285714 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.35714285714 5.70786347227 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 8.20758483034 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0737898482717 0.218282227539 34% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0283423381261 0.0743258471296 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0275661975857 0.0701772020484 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0444687102984 0.128457276422 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0248378741398 0.0628817314937 39% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.6 14.3799401198 67% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 71.14 48.3550499002 147% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 12.197005988 62% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.86 12.5979740519 78% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.14 8.32208582834 86% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.