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 statement argues that children in the Himalayan region of Nepal have lower levels of tooth decay than children in the US who have better access to professional dental care and concludes reguar dental care is not helpful in preventing tooth decay. Stated in this way the statement fails to cite the details of the study and the backgrounds of both sets of children who were a part of the study and hence its conclusion is rather weak and unsupported.
Firstly, there is no data which suggests how many children were studied and what their backgrounds were. It is likely only a small number of children were studied in the himalayas and they turned out to have good dental condition without access to regular dental care and a much larger group was studied in the US which resulted in an inaccurate representation of the results. The author fails to mention the children's dietary habits since children in the US often indulge in junk foods and candies which could be a reason for a higher level of tooth decay than their Himalayan peers who might not be eating similar sugary products. For the author to reach a conclusion that dental care doesnt help in preventing tooth decay is rather naive.
Secondly, the statement claims that the children living in the himalayan region have lesser access to dental care which is in no way supported. It is not mentioned how many children from either countries go to see the dentists on a regular basis and how many dentists are available per unit of area. The author assumes that children living in the US go to the dentist more simply because they have better access to dental care which is again an assumption supported in no way by the statement.
Finally, the author states that people in suburban areas in the United States see a dentist an average of 1.25 times per year and people in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal receive little to no professional dental care. This statement fails to mention the details of the study such as age, total number of people involved using which was used to reach the conclusion.
In conclusion, the statement fails to provide enough statistics to justify its conclusion and is based on incomplete data and
| 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 |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 124, Rule ID: SMALL_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, use 'a few', or use 'some'
Suggestion: a few; some
...eir backgrounds were. It is likely only a small number of children were studied in the himalayas ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 688, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... to reach a conclusion that dental care doesnt help in preventing tooth decay is rathe...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 393, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... to the dentist more simply because they have better access to dental care which ...
^^
Line 7, column 130, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...st an average of 1.25 times per year and people in the Himalayan mountain region ...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'in conclusion', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.273869346734 0.25644967241 107% => OK
Verbs: 0.168341708543 0.15541462614 108% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0929648241206 0.0836205057962 111% => OK
Adverbs: 0.035175879397 0.0520304965353 68% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0201005025126 0.0272364105082 74% => OK
Prepositions: 0.128140703518 0.125424944231 102% => OK
Participles: 0.035175879397 0.0416121511921 85% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.49332322965 2.79052419416 89% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0376884422111 0.026700313972 141% => OK
Particles: 0.00251256281407 0.001811407834 139% => OK
Determiners: 0.125628140704 0.113004496875 111% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00502512562814 0.0255425247493 20% => Some modal verbs wanted.
WH_determiners: 0.0326633165829 0.0127820249294 256% => Maybe 'Which' is overused. If other WH_determiners like 'Who, What, Whom, Whose...' are used too in sentences, then there are no issues.
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2204.0 2731.13054187 81% => OK
No of words: 382.0 446.07635468 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.76963350785 6.12365571057 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42095241839 4.57801047555 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.350785340314 0.378187486979 93% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.20942408377 0.287650121315 73% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.149214659686 0.208842608468 71% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0994764397906 0.135150697306 74% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49332322965 2.79052419416 89% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 207.018472906 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.44502617801 0.469332199767 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 46.569378047 52.1807786196 89% => OK
How many sentences: 12.0 20.039408867 60% => OK
Sentence length: 31.8333333333 23.2022227129 137% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.7425961886 57.7814097925 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 183.666666667 141.986410481 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.8333333333 23.2022227129 137% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.833333333333 0.724660767414 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 52.7757417103 51.9672348444 102% => OK
Elegance: 1.95505617978 1.8405768891 106% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.532544663857 0.441005458295 121% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.171827566502 0.135418324435 127% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0602905916634 0.0829849096947 73% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.699195517867 0.58762219726 119% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.174146771674 0.147661913831 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.279756146086 0.193483328276 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.16717239357 0.0970749176394 172% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.455869324654 0.42659136922 107% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.116865524673 0.0774707102158 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.37041981454 0.312017818177 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.136961771743 0.0698173142475 196% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.33743842365 48% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 8.0 14.657635468 55% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.