An international development organisation, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be paid subsidies for farming the new variety of millet. Since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt the new variety. To combat vitamin A deficiency, the government of Tagus should do everything it can to promote this new type of millet.
The author's argument that the government of Tagus should do everything it can to promote the new type of millet to combat vitamin A deficiency is flawed.
First, we must consider if the new breed of millet has been tested to be safe for human consumption. Otherwise, it could have adverse side effects that are worse than the effects of vitamin A deficiency. Moreover, the new breed of millet may not have all the health benefits that the original breed of millet probably had. If this were true, the Tagus government should not look for a substitute for the old breed of millet. Instead, it can look for a supplement, that can be taken along with regular meals.
Moreover, the argument states that Tagus is an impoverished nation. This implies that the people in the nation of Tagus hardly have food to eat. Prior to developing a new breed of millet that is high in vitamin A, the international development organisation should have responded to mitigate poverty and basic needs like food and potable water instead.
The argument also states that while the new breed of millet is expensive, farmers will be paid subsidies for farming the new variety of millet. But, will the amount paid by the government incur all the charges that the farmers would have to bear? Moreover, the government of Tagus has to purchase the new variety of the millet from the international development organisation. Does the government has enough funds? Also, the people of Tagus may not readily adopt the new variety of millet because it tastes different than the old breed. Then, the government and the farmers would be at loss.
The argument can be strengthened if the author had considered the above issues. As it stands, the argument is flawed.
- Claim: Even though young people often receive the advice to “follow your dreams,” more emphasis should be placed on picking worthy goals.Reason: Many people’s dreams are inherently selfish.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which 50
- Rembrandt is the most famous of the seventeenth-century Dutch painters. However, there are doubts whether some paintings attributed to Rembrandt were actually painted by him. One such painting is known as attributed to Rembrandt because of its style, and 83
- Some young adults want independence from their parents as soon as possible. Other young adults prefer to live with their families for a longer time. Which of these situations do you think is better? Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinio 73
- Altruism is a type of behavior in which an animal sacrifices its own interest for that of another animal or group of animals. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness; individuals performing altruistic acts gain nothing for themselves.Examples of altruism 80
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 5, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
The authors argument that the government of Tagus s...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 397, Rule ID: DOES_NP_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'have'?
Suggestion: have
...pment organisation. Does the government has enough funds? Also, the people of Tagus...
^^^
Line 7, column 517, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style.
Suggestion: from
...y of millet because it tastes different than the old breed. Then, the government and...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'as to']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.237804878049 0.25644967241 93% => OK
Verbs: 0.164634146341 0.15541462614 106% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0823170731707 0.0836205057962 98% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0426829268293 0.0520304965353 82% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0182926829268 0.0272364105082 67% => OK
Prepositions: 0.128048780488 0.125424944231 102% => OK
Participles: 0.0365853658537 0.0416121511921 88% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.62677194405 2.79052419416 94% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0243902439024 0.026700313972 91% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.131097560976 0.113004496875 116% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0457317073171 0.0255425247493 179% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00914634146341 0.0127820249294 72% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1737.0 2731.13054187 64% => OK
No of words: 297.0 446.07635468 67% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.84848484848 6.12365571057 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.57801047555 91% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.3367003367 0.378187486979 89% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.242424242424 0.287650121315 84% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.144781144781 0.208842608468 69% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.10101010101 0.135150697306 75% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62677194405 2.79052419416 94% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 207.018472906 67% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.464646464646 0.469332199767 99% => OK
Word variations: 45.0824524589 52.1807786196 86% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 17.4705882353 23.2022227129 75% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.9620853747 57.7814097925 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.176470588 141.986410481 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4705882353 23.2022227129 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.647058823529 0.724660767414 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 41.7130124777 51.9672348444 80% => OK
Elegance: 1.78378378378 1.8405768891 97% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.450956084188 0.441005458295 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.15109375332 0.135418324435 112% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0769164899413 0.0829849096947 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.640747265296 0.58762219726 109% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.165868729461 0.147661913831 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.190761269519 0.193483328276 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.111648627819 0.0970749176394 115% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.420223393936 0.42659136922 99% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0364281496246 0.0774707102158 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.286271717853 0.312017818177 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.112563023028 0.0698173142475 161% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
More content wanted. For issue essays, around 450 words, for argument essays, around 400 words.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.