Last year, Kensington Academy turned over management of its cafeteria to a private vendor, Swift Nutrition. This company serves low-fat, low-calorie meals that students do not find enjoyable – my son and several of his friends came home yesterday complaining about the lunch options. While the intent of hiring Swift may have been to cause students to eat healthier foods, the plan is just going to cause students to bring their own, less healthy lunches instead of eating cafeteria food. If Swift is not replaced with another vendor, there will be serious health consequences for Kensington students.
While it may be true that if Swift is not replaced with another vendor, there will be serious health consequences for Kensington students-but the argument is not cogent enough and needs some valid explanations for the unwarranted assumptions it made.
Primarily, the argument made an unwarranted assumption that low-fat and low-calorie foods are unhealthy. While it may be true that low-fat and low-calorie foods are not so much tasty and usually do not attract children very much but it is possible that they may be good for the health of the school going children. Foods rich in fat and calorie, however, may be attractive and enjoyable but they cause serious harm to the body as the body become bulky and children who consume such kind of foods become overweight inspite of doing regular exercise. Apart from suffering diabetics and high blood pressure, the particular children will suffer many more chronic diseases because of the regular consumption of rich food containing high fat and calorie. Had the argument explained in detail that the company serves low-fat low-calorie food and such food are not healthy for the children only then we can accept the argument.
Secondly, if we assume for a while that low-fat and low-calorie foods are not healthy and harms children health there is no explicit evidence that the company is not selling foods rich in fat and calorie. It may happen that the particular child and his friend bought low-fat and low-calorie food but the company has a large variety of foods which are rich in fat and calorie. Had the argument placed sufficient evidence that all the foods which are supplied by the particular company are suffering from low-fat and low-calorie issue only then we can accept the argument. But even then the argument must prove it low-fat and low-calorie foods are unhealthy.
Thirdly, the argument unwarrantedly assumes that foods that are brought by children of their own are unhealthy. It may happen that those foods brought by children are much healthier then cafeteria food since homemade foods are the best one. Regular consumption of homemade foods are the best theory to maintain a healthy body and hence the argument is not valid.
The argument is not valid because it makes some unwarranted assumptions.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-18 | Chayank_11 | 78 | view |
| 2019-12-06 | chapagain08 | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-28 | Walia Farzana | 49 | view |
| 2019-11-10 | Cursed God | 83 | view |
| 2019-10-29 | Vindo | 50 | view |
- It is more enjoyable to have a job where you work only three days a week for long hours than to have a job where you work five days a week for shorter hours 66
- Some people believe that it is helpful to view a challenging situation as an opportunity for personal growth Others believe that reimagining challenging situations this way occupies too much of the focus one needs to face challenges effectively 79
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 58
- Ethanol fuel made from plants such as corn and sugar cane has been advocated by some people as an alternative to gasoline in the United States However many critics argue that ethanol is not a good replacement for gasoline for several reasons First the inc 73
- Some people claim that the goal of politics should be the pursuit of an ideal. Others argue that the goal should be finding common ground and reaching reasonable consensus. 66
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 376 350
No. of Characters: 1867 1500
No. of Different Words: 157 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.403 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.965 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.57 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.857 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.956 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.857 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.479 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.701 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.308 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 187, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...-calorie foods are not so much tasty and usually do not attract children very muc...
^^
Line 5, column 488, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e supplied by the particular company are suffering from low-fat and low-calorie i...
^^
Line 7, column 183, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[3]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
... brought by children are much healthier then cafeteria food since homemade foods are...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, while, apart from, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 11.1786427146 215% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 55.5748502994 38% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1900.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 376.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.05319148936 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40348946061 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63155452563 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.417553191489 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 583.2 705.55239521 83% => 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: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.9361410352 57.8364921388 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.714285714 119.503703932 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.8571428571 23.324526521 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.14285714286 5.70786347227 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.176652416693 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0850859131485 0.0743258471296 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0696665522789 0.0701772020484 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0870603398647 0.128457276422 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0823440561481 0.0628817314937 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.74 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 98.500998004 68% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.