In 1992, many farmers in Jalikistan began using a hormone designed to produce larger cows that would produce more milk. Since then, childhood obesity in Jalikistan has grown by 200 percent. The amount of milk and dairy consumed by children in this area has not increased or decreased. Children in the same area who are lactose intolerant, and who drink almond milk or soy milk, have not had the same increase in childhood obesity. The only clear explanation is that the introduction of the hormone is responsible for the increase in childhood obesity in that area.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more viable alternatives to the proposed explanation. Justify, with support, why the alternatives could rival the proposed explanation and explain how those explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The argument presents a fallacious conclusion that connects the introduction of a new hormone for cows with increased obesity among children of the same region. However, the seemingly straightforward reasoning is based on assumptions that have no clear proof. The lack of knowledge of prior trend of obesity rates, limiting the argument to just one type of food, and completely neglecting lifestyle changes can be seen as the Achilles heel of the author’s assertion.
Since the induction of the new hormone, the author states that childhood obesity rates have surged steeply. However, it is not known if the surge was prevalent or not even before the introduction of this new hormone. There is no data on prior obesity rates, hence there is no way to discern the trend of rising obesity levels. The argument only accounts for an abrupt observation made since the onset of a situation, rendering the conclusion faulty.
Children who drank almond milk or soy milk did not show similar obesity traits. Almond milk and soy milk are naturally healthier choices of diet, as compared to normal cow milk. Hence, in no way, does it directly imply that the new hormone degraded the nutritional value of cow milk. There is inadequate information about the deviation of weights, meaning that there could be a possibility of a few major outliers among children who drank cow milk, that significantly changed the results. While the increased rate of obesity is not the same as children who drank cow milk, it does not mean that there has been no increase at all. In fact, it is quite possible that while there is a 200% increase in obesity rates among one group of children, the others showed a 150% rise. The increase is not the same, yet significant. In that case, the argument majorly fails to take into account the rise in obesity rates of children who were clearly not subject to the new hormone.
It is important to note that the only comparison that has been made is over the intake of the type of milk. There is no information whatsoever on the other - possibly similar - food choices among the children of jalikistan. A single source of food, more often than not, does not cause a significantly alarming change in health, unless there is a mammoth intake of that particular item of food. However, the argument clearly mentions that there has been no change in the amount of milk consumed. This severely discredits the conclusion made in the argument.
Another factor that must be taken into account is that the choice of food is not always the absolute reason for obesity. Obesity can be onset by a number of other reasons, lifestyle is one of the main contenders. The argument, in no way, accounts for the lifestyle of the children in Jalikistan. Reduced active time can result from a number of factors, like increased academic pressure which in turn reduces playtime, or urbanisation of towns, leading to a dearth of open spaces to play in, or maybe even increased addiction to TVs, computers, phones or video games. Such changes majorly affect health and obesity rates and are completely overlooked in this argument.
Notwithstanding the observed increase in obesity coinciding with the induction of the new hormone, it is unwise to conclude that the new hormone is the reason for increasing obesity rates. The argument clearly contains major flaws and unproven assumptions and therefore, is in no way a cogent assertion.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-21 | yswang | 55 | view |
| 2019-11-23 | yswang | 49 | view |
| 2019-09-12 | dpn1102 | 36 | view |
| 2019-09-04 | Krishna Prasad | 33 | view |
| 2019-08-11 | lalitarora97 | 50 | view |
- Claim An action is morally correct if the amount of good that results from the action is greater than the amount of bad that results from the action Reason When assessing the morality of an action the results of the action are more important than the inte 78
- In 1992, many farmers in Jalikistan began using a hormone designed to produce larger cows that would produce more milk. Since then, childhood obesity in Jalikistan has grown by 200 percent. The amount of milk and dairy consumed by children in this area ha 55
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 579 350
No. of Characters: 2771 1500
No. of Different Words: 252 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.905 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.786 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.628 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 195 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 155 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.444 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.126 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.296 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.294 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.505 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.068 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 196, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ed to normal cow milk. Hence, in no way, does it directly imply that the new horm...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, however, if, look, may, so, therefore, while, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 55.5748502994 140% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2869.0 2260.96107784 127% => OK
No of words: 579.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95509499136 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90534594407 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71621084335 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 259.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.447322970639 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 914.4 705.55239521 130% => 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: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.2476749122 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.259259259 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4444444444 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.22222222222 5.70786347227 39% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
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: 0.177647254134 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0557087923279 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0450584004877 0.0701772020484 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0885707957462 0.128457276422 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0490700936241 0.0628817314937 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 98.500998004 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => 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.