A recent study indicates that children living in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal have lower levels of tooth decay than children living in suburban areas in the United States, despite the fact that people in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal receive little to no professional dental care, while people in suburban areas in the United States see a dentist an average of 1.25 times per year. Thus, regular dental care is not helpful in preventing tooth decay.
The author of this analytical piece has drawn a conclusion based on disjoint facts and baseless assumptions that regular dental care does not help to militate against the tooth decay. To support his assertion, he has presented a case of children living in Himalayan mountain and in suburban areas in United States where children living in Himalayan mountain do not receive professional dental care and contrary to this, the children in United States see a dentist an average of 1.25 times per year. However, the argument is problematic in several respects.
To begin with, it is stated that a study was conducted recently, but when was it conducted to be very precise? If it was conducted couple of years back then it is highly possible that now children living in Himalayan mountain are provided good dental care. Therefore the information presented here is obfuscated. Moreover, it does not throw light at the number of children who were taken into account while conducting the study. If the number is minimal then it creates the doubt on the credibility of study, as based on study of few children we can not make a firm conclusion for the children of whole region.
Secondly, it is highly possible that the children of Himalayan region are leading a healthy life style and contrary to this the children of United States are not focused more on their health. This explains that despite the children receive decent dental care in United States, its their lifestyle and what they eat are more responsible for the tooth decay.
Thirdly, it is stated that people in suburban areas in United States see a dentist an average of 1.25 times per year but nowhere it is mentioned that the children visit the dentist regularly. As average indicates the whole public, it is highly possible that it is adults and elders who often visit dentist and therefore here assuming that regular dental care in not helpful would be mistaken.
Finally, here we are being asked to believe that an average of 1.25 visit per year is enough to prevent tooth decay but author has not provided any evidence to justify this. Therefore, it is highly possible that the way children leading their lifestyle in suburban areas of United States, they need to visit more in order to prevent the tooth decay.
In my final analysis, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. Mere assumptions are not enough to justify the claim of the author. Therefore to strengthen his argument, the author must provide the statistical data that is credible and author must provide the strong evidence.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-16 | AaronFernandes | 60 | view |
| 2023-04-09 | Aaishani De | 66 | view |
| 2023-01-18 | writingishard | 59 | view |
| 2022-06-24 | Nalu00 | 53 | view |
| 2021-08-27 | Adz12345 | 53 | view |
- College students should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in that field. 58
- Theories about risk-taking personality 73
- Much archaeological evidence supports the widely held view that the first people to migrate to the American continent entered through a land bridge, which at one time joined Eastern Asia with North America. This land bridge, known as Beringia, was a wide 75
- When Stanley Park first opened, it was the largest, most heavily used public park in town. It is still the largest park, but it is no longer heavily used. Video cameras mounted in the park's parking lots last month revealed the park's drop in popularity: 83
- Pets should be treated like family members. 60
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not OK
argument 4 -- not OK
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 434 350
No. of Characters: 2079 1500
No. of Different Words: 181 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.564 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.79 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.459 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 34 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.529 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.469 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.706 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.332 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.608 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.12 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 258, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...mountain are provided good dental care. Therefore the information presented here is obfus...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 278, Rule ID: IT_IS[17]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...ve decent dental care in United States, its their lifestyle and what they eat are m...
^^^
Line 11, column 134, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ugh to justify the claim of the author. Therefore to strengthen his argument, the author ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, then, therefore, third, thirdly, while, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2132.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 434.0 441.139720559 98% => OK
Chars per words: 4.91244239631 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56428161445 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52647221667 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.433179723502 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 679.5 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.615177066 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.411764706 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5294117647 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.35294117647 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.288177665427 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0820396807327 0.0743258471296 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0888381645183 0.0701772020484 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144396450305 0.128457276422 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0893638388026 0.0628817314937 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.82 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.