While at first this argument seems sound, there are a few questions that need to be answered in order to decide if a new breed of millet will combat the vitamin A deficiency problem in Tagus.
First, it needs to be answered if a new breed of millet high in vitamin A is the only solution, or if there are cheaper options. Since Tagus is an impoverished nation, they need to have an affordable solution. While part of this current solution involves subsidizing the farming of millet, if there is a cheaper and easier option, those should be explored. For example, perhaps a supplement in the form of a pill would be a cheaper and more accessible option. However, if other solutions have been explored and a new type of millet is the only plausible solution, then this would further support the argument in combatting the vitamin A deficiency.
Another question that needs to be answered is if the subsidies will sufficiently cover costs for farming the new variety of millet. Subsidizing farmers to grow the new variety of millet does seem like a good solution on the surface. However, if the costs for growing this new variety of millet are still high, even after being subsidized, then farmers will not want to grow the new variety and the vitamin A deficiency problem will not be solved.
Finally, it needs to be clarified if the people in Tagus will accept a new variety of millet as readily as the recommendation suggests. This argument assumes that just because they already eat one type of millet, that they will automatically eat a new variety. However, if this new type of millet costs more to grow, will it also cost more to buy and consume? If so, the people of Tagus might not want to buy the new variety, so the vitamin A deficiency will still be an issue. Or perhaps this new type of millet will taste different, and therefore wont be as popular in Tagus. Again, this would still cause the vitamin A issue to exist. The question needs to be answered if the people of Tagus will actually easily adopt a new variety of Tagus, depending on variables such as cost and taste.
While this argument initially seems reasonable, there needs to be clarifications on if a new variety of millet is the only solution, if subsidies will sufficiently cover costs for growing the new variety, and if the people of Tagus will readily adopt the new millet. Depending on how these questions are answered, the recommendation will either be strengthened, or a new approach will be needed to solve the problem.
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 75
- An international development organization, 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 p 66
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'therefore', 'while', 'for example', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.213991769547 0.25644967241 83% => OK
Verbs: 0.172839506173 0.15541462614 111% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0864197530864 0.0836205057962 103% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0658436213992 0.0520304965353 127% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0123456790123 0.0272364105082 45% => OK
Prepositions: 0.125514403292 0.125424944231 100% => OK
Participles: 0.0452674897119 0.0416121511921 109% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.65187711687 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0308641975309 0.026700313972 116% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.123456790123 0.113004496875 109% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0390946502058 0.0255425247493 153% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00617283950617 0.0127820249294 48% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2509.0 2731.13054187 92% => OK
No of words: 442.0 446.07635468 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67647058824 6.12365571057 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58517132086 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.321266968326 0.378187486979 85% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.253393665158 0.287650121315 88% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.153846153846 0.208842608468 74% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0904977375566 0.135150697306 67% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65187711687 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 207.018472906 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.377828054299 0.469332199767 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 41.0917177691 52.1807786196 79% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 24.5555555556 23.2022227129 106% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.4520593387 57.7814097925 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.388888889 141.986410481 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5555555556 23.2022227129 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.722222222222 0.724660767414 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 49.8949220714 51.9672348444 96% => OK
Elegance: 1.53278688525 1.8405768891 83% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.514913392591 0.441005458295 117% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.156666065251 0.135418324435 116% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.103513980064 0.0829849096947 125% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.61879392771 0.58762219726 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.182329328229 0.147661913831 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.24197051898 0.193483328276 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0738610061628 0.0970749176394 76% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.500395513787 0.42659136922 117% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.101749609046 0.0774707102158 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.376429754503 0.312017818177 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0583578115304 0.0698173142475 84% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations to cover all aspects.