Green tea has long been hailed as an excellent source of antioxidants, powerful anti-aging and immune-system boosting compounds. Many people therefore believe that the more cups they consume each day, the greater the benefits. Green tea, however, contains moderate amounts of caffeine, a stimulant that is not without side effects, including sleeplessness, irritability, and headaches. A long-term study has found that those who drink more than three cups of green tea a day are likely to have symptoms similar to those that chronic coffee drinkers, another source of caffeine, suffer. Therefore, it is important that anyone who chooses to drink green tea limit their intake to no more than two cups a day.
The author of the argument contends that people who choose to drink green tea, they should limit their intake to no more than two cups a day. He or she provides the following as evidence to support his or her claims; first, the fact that green tea contains caffeine, which is related to sleeplessness, irritability and headaches, second the findings of a study, assuming that green tea drinkers are having symptoms similar to chronic coffee drinkers. The reasoning of the argument is totally flawed, as it is based upon unsubstantiated assumptions.
Firstly, the author fails to ensure us about the effectiveness of green tea, when he or she quotes that it has long been hailed as an excellent source of antioxidants, powerful anti-aging and immune-system boosting compounds. Green tea is likely to possess all these advantages, but we are given no indication if it constitutes the only and most prolific source of these benefits. The spokesperson should have stated that among all other tea options and herbs, green tea was found to have the most positive contribution to healthy lifestyle. That would render the evidence compelling and thoroughgoing.
Second, the author of the argument too hastily presents the opinion of many people; that the more green tea someone drinks, the greater the benefits. Perhaps, people are having a fault assumption, as they may have never analyzed any negative effects of green tea. He or she should have cited more information about those who have that opinion. For instance, many people who are based on empirical analysis or many people without any specific knowledge. Moreover, the findings of the study mentioned, are unwarranted as the readers are given no indication if the respondents of the study are proxy of the overall group of people. He or she, should have displayed accurate data and detailed information about the study itself, in order for us to accept the validity and effectiveness of his claims.
In addition, the author wrongly establishes an analogy between green tea drinkers and chronic coffee drinkers. These two parts present a positive correlation rather than a casual connection. Also, the concept that both coffee and green tea both contain caffeine does not necessarily mean that both have the same symptoms. The arguer should have presented more things in common between green tea drinkers and the coffee ones. For example, some experiments that have happened under the same conditions for both categories.
Finally, it is equivocal the conclusion of the argument as presented, when it is quoted that green tea drinkers should limit their intake to no more than two cups a day. Probably, that measure should be implemented for those who drink both coffee and green tea, or for those who are vulnerable to some symptoms caused by large caffeine intakes. The author of the argument should have quoted specific factors, such as surveys about caffeine intake and health factors in different ages, in order for the readers to accept the validity of his or her claims.
The argument is weak, since neither is the conclusion sound nor is the suggestion legitimate. Had there been substantial evidence, perhaps, the argumnet would have sounded more credible, but in its absence, it sounds indefensible.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-15 | bstergios55@yahoo.com | 49 | view |
| 2019-11-12 | anirudh8860 | 57 | view |
| 2019-10-08 | Shubham Bait | 63 | view |
| 2019-08-24 | Nikhil Nanjappa | 69 | view |
| 2019-08-16 | jinquanw | 65 | view |
- Many farmers who invested in the equipment needed to make the switch from synthetic to organic fertilizers and pesticides feel that it would be too expensive to resume synthetic farming at this point. But studies of farmers who switched to organic farming 83
- The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Alta Manufacturing."During the past year, Alta Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries, where work shifts are one hour shorter than our 81
- As public concern over drug abuse has increased authorities have become more vigilant in their efforts to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country Many drug traffickers have consequently switched from marijuana which is bulky or heroin which has a 47
- Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance 79
- The perceived greatness of any political leader has more to do with challenges faced by that leader than with any of his or her inherent skills and abilities. 79
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: 23 15
No. of Words: 533 350
No. of Characters: 2663 1500
No. of Different Words: 241 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.805 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.996 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.649 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 200 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.174 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.361 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.565 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.32 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.547 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, if, may, moreover, second, so, for example, for instance, in addition, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 11.1786427146 206% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 28.8173652695 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2753.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 533.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16510318949 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80487177365 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75779249191 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463414634146 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 847.8 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.7602093614 57.8364921388 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.695652174 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1739130435 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.95652173913 5.70786347227 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
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: 0.316480128762 0.218282227539 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0911279828818 0.0743258471296 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0977726886348 0.0701772020484 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164565675439 0.128457276422 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0986138578701 0.0628817314937 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 98.500998004 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.