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 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 prompt has stated that combating vitamin A deficiency among the impoverished people of Tagus is predicated on the government's support in promoting the adoption of a new millet breed among local farmers. The author has established this recommendation based on the adoption of millet as a staple food, by the people, and that farmers will be paid subsidies to farm the new variety of millet. However, for this recommendation to be accurately evaluated, the following two key questions need to be answered.
To start off, how much is the said subsidy worth when compared to the cost of the millet and the overall profit margin? In other words, will the subsidy considerably offset the millet cost with room for enough gain for the farmer? The author has erroneously assumed that the subsidies will be sufficient for the farmers to cultivate this new millet and still have enough returns. Perhaps, the subsidy is a paltry sum that just barely defrays the cost to the farmer with no commensurate returns. If this holds true, then the recommendation does not hold merit. Consequently, the farmers will not cultivate the millet seeds, which will definitely not yield the predicted results.
Furthermore, have the new millet breeds been tested and validated for human consumption by appropriate authorities? That millet is already a staple food, does not make a new breed automatically safe for consumption. It is possible that the engineered breed of millet may cause health concerns if consumed. The argument does not state whether the millet has been vetted safe for consumption by authorities. If this is the case, then the prediction cannot occur since no one will want to have strange foods on their menu.
In conclusion, the prediction is considerably flawed and will not lead to the proposed result. If the aforementioned questions are addressed, then the author's position can be bolstered and it can be properly evaluated. More investigations have to be made into the new millet breed and the highlighted concerns before steps can be taken to promote it among the farmers of Tagus.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-20 | Dinesh4518 | 63 | view |
| 2023-08-11 | Nowshin Tabassum | 69 | view |
| 2023-07-21 | Gnyana | 68 | view |
| 2023-07-20 | Prasad002 | 59 | view |
| 2023-07-08 | tanvik21 | 74 | view |
- 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 paid 50
- 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 paid 60
- 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 paid 50
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 345 350
No. of Characters: 1709 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.31 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.954 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.836 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 119 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 82 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.294 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.047 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.588 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.327 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.532 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.071 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The prompt has stated that combating vit...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... key questions need to be answered. To start off, how much is the said subsi...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ly not yield the predicted results. Furthermore, have the new millet breeds ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...o have strange foods on their menu. In conclusion, the prediction is conside...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, furthermore, however, if, may, still, then, in conclusion, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 55.5748502994 65% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1751.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 345.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07536231884 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3097767484 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90797598023 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.498550724638 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 537.3 705.55239521 76% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.1881624225 57.8364921388 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 103.0 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2941176471 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11764705882 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.415368251765 0.218282227539 190% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.131385582464 0.0743258471296 177% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0851671423071 0.0701772020484 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.254635832984 0.128457276422 198% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0740865892286 0.0628817314937 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.