The several underlying reasonings of the author of this essay, in short, first, is that since there exists a geographical area where people receiving little professional dental care have lower level of tooth decay than another another region where people were reciving dental care; the benifit of receiving regular dental care can be benied. And second, the statistics for all people lving in suburban area in the US necessarily must be consistent to the statistcs for that of all the children falling in the same category.
A vital assumption needed for such reasoning to be valid is that 'geographical location' is a representative indicator of the combination of all other lurking variables, such as gene of the local people, diet, living habits... all those factors that may affect individuals' dental health condition. However, this assumption may hardly hold true. People living in Himalayan mountain region have dramatically different diet habit from those who live in suburban area in the US, which typically involving less sugar and artificial flavors. Also, the food for childing living in Himalayan mountian region tend to contain more fibers, which are less harmful to dental health.
Also, the data '1.25 times per year' for each person on average is not a direct statistics represent the professional dental care received by the children living in the suburban areas in the US. It is totally possible that adults were receiving professional dental care frequently while leving the children receiving no dental care at all. If this is the case, then the statistics simply was not point to the same population group as the one we mentioned living in Himalayan mountatin region.
Further more, there is no evidence suggesting that children in Himalayan mountain region is not receving any form of dental care at all. Even if not professional, those dental care may also be effective, hence result in the low tooth decay rate than childing living in the suburban areas. However, by no mean can non-prefessional dental care being effective drive us to the conclusion that regular dental care is not helpful in preventing tooth decay.
In conclusion, the reasoning presented in the passageg is full of flaws as a result of it failure to control all the variables. A correlation is insufficent to suggest causasion, as all the textbook for elementary statistics would suggest.
e-rater score 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: 14 15
No. of Words: 387 350
No. of Characters: 1951 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.435 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.041 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.754 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 100 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.643 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.235 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.786 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.386 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.632 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.176 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 220, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: another
...re have lower level of tooth decay than another another region where people were reciving denta...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, then, while, in conclusion, in short, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2004.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 387.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17829457364 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80353302484 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.511627906977 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 628.2 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.0360171085 57.8364921388 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.6 119.503703932 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.2 5.70786347227 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.243525254488 0.218282227539 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0859989400503 0.0743258471296 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0782631412349 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134251224295 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0704115855622 0.0628817314937 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.06 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.