Milk and dairy products are rich in vitamin D and calcium—substances essential for building and maintaining bones. Many people therefore say that a diet rich in dairy products can help prevent osteoporosis, a disease that is linked to both environmental and genetic factors and that causes the bones to weaken significantly with age. But a long-term study of a large number of people found that those who consistently consumed dairy products throughout the years of the study have a higher rate of bone fractures than any other participants in the study. Since bone fractures are symptomatic of osteoporosis, this study result shows that a diet rich in dairy products may actually increase, rather than decrease, the risk of osteoporosis.
In this argument, the author claims that a diet rich in dairy products may actually increase,, rather than decrease the risk of osteoporosis. To support her argument, she points out that vitamin D and calcium are rich in mike and dairy products and the commonly accepted belief that these kinds of food can help prevent osteoporosis. Also, she cites the recent study about the effect of dairy diet against for the common belief. Careful scrutiny reveals that this argument has several logical flaws.
To begin with, the author hastily assumes that commonly accepted concept about the beneficial effect of dairy foods is reliable. Common sense tells us that there are many factors that affect the occurrence of a disease. For example, genetic factors, other materials which are not contained in dairy products or the amount of muscle or even, other kinds of foods. Until she explains why she thinks the eating calcium and vitamin D through dairy foods is the main factor to prevent the disease, we cannot be convinced by this argument.
Secondly, based on the study, the author assumes that the people who participated in the study can typify common people. There is no such guarantee that the people are almost same with other people who didn't participate in the study. For example, the participants could have different lifestyles with other people or could have different genetic traits. If she cannot explain the reason why she thinks the participants could represent other people, this argument is still not cogent
Finally, if we admit that other problematic assumptions are true, there are still a lethargic problem. The high rate of a bone fracture could not be related to high consumption of dairy foods. For example, people who have the high incidence of the bone fracture could genetically have weak bones or could not genetically intake calcium and vitamin D in milk or even, people who participated in the study could have a bone fracture because of random accidents like car accidents. IF this is true, this argument is not proper.
In conclusion, this argument is dubious as it stands. To make this argument more persuasive, the author have to explain why she thinks the participants are similar with other people who didn't participate in the research and why she thinks the main factor of the disease is calcium and vitamin D. To evaluate better, we must know that exact relation of a bone fracture and the high consumption of dairy foods
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-01-14 | Dhiraj Shah | 45 | view |
- Some people believe that scientific discoveries have given us a much better understanding of the world around us. Others believe that science has revealed to us that the world is infinitely more complex than we ever realized. 62
- The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing. "During the past year, Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than 70
- An ancient, traditional remedy for insomnia—the scent of lavender flowers—has now been proved effective. In a recent study, 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia slept each night for three weeks on lavender-scented pillows in a controlled room where the 46
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities. "Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our war 69
- The following appeared in a recommendation from the planning department of the city of Transopolis."Ten years ago, as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program, the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substanda 89
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 414 350
No. of Characters: 2000 1500
No. of Different Words: 177 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.511 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.831 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.446 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 99 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.266 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.343 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.563 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.192 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 93, Rule ID: DOUBLE_PUNCTUATION
Message: Two consecutive commas
Suggestion: ,
... in dairy products may actually increase,, rather than decrease the risk of osteop...
^^
Line 5, column 203, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...e are almost same with other people who didnt participate in the study. For example, ...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 187, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...pants are similar with other people who didnt participate in the research and why she...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, for example, in conclusion, in fact, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2054.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 412.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.9854368932 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50530610838 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5240711272 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.43932038835 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 639.0 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.3288474736 57.8364921388 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.111111111 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8888888889 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.27777777778 5.70786347227 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205726917098 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0706457738984 0.0743258471296 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0732217287109 0.0701772020484 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127975457253 0.128457276422 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0882348580934 0.0628817314937 140% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.96 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.