In the recommendation, it states that a novel strand of millet which contains a higher rate of vitamin A should be adopted by the Tagus government in order to combat vitamin A deficiency. Although at first glance this recommendation seems sound, several questions must first be answered before it is adopted into practice. Without answers to these questions it would be irresponsible for the Tagus government to adhere to the plan recommended.
The first series of questions surround the issue of vitamin A. The memo does not state the severity of the vitamin A deficiency and so it is impossible to know if it is even an area of concern. Following up on this issue is the question of if vitamin A is even that necessary towards a healthy person. If it is found that either the deficiency is not that great, or that vitamin A at the level the Tagus citizens are recieving is sufficient to a healthy diet, then the recommendation is completely invalid and leads readers to wonder if the international development organization is attempting to promote a more expensive or profitable alternative millet.
Another area of assumptions that the recommendation fails to address is the ability of the Tagus government to provide farmers with subsidies. It is noted that the nation of Tagus is impoverished, so it is very likely that the government will not be able to support the farmers to make the switch. If it is discovered that the government is incapable in undertaking this task, then the farmers will either not be able to afford the switch and enter further poverty, or pass on the cost of the millet to the consumer. In the latter case consumers will either suffer from increased cost to a staple food or will avoid the new product causing the deficiency to be a continuing problem.
There is a possibility that consumers will eschew the new strand of millet for another reason - taste. The recommendation fails to provide evidence that the engineered millet tastes the same and is just as combatable with other staple foods in Tagus. If it turns out that the engineered food does not meet the quality of the original form of millet, then the consumers will most likely elect the standard and ignore the health benefits of the engineered version, again leaving the vitamin A deficiency a continuing problem and costing the impoverished nation of Tagus a lot of unnecessary money.
In conclusion the recommendation to switch to the engineered strand of millet is incomplete without answering several key questions. If the vitamin A deficiency reveals itself to not be malign, the government is unable to cover the costs of the new strand, or the new strand of millet fails to entice consumers, the the recommendation completely unravels and is unjustified. Until the answers to these questions are known and included in a future recommendation, the Tagus should look for other alternatives or other issues to focus on and combat.
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition 83
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition 83
- "Governments are justified in circumventing civil laws when doing so is vital to the protection of national security. "Write an essay in which you take a position on the statement above. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways 66
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company."According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any 29
- 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
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not exactly
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
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: 16 15
No. of Words: 496 350
No. of Characters: 2400 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.719 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.839 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.938 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 177 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.51 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.603 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.109 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 313, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...nd of millet fails to entice consumers, the the recommendation completely unravels and ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 313, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...nd of millet fails to entice consumers, the the recommendation completely unravels and ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, look, so, then, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2446.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 496.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9314516129 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71922212354 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00198240366 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.427419354839 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 783.9 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 76.7235183623 57.8364921388 133% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.882352941 119.503703932 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.1764705882 23.324526521 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.35294117647 5.70786347227 41% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => 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: 0.291090624729 0.218282227539 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.094791853521 0.0743258471296 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0535632028232 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16918461376 0.128457276422 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0535262042091 0.0628817314937 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.3799401198 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 48.3550499002 87% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.91 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.