The given argument is initiated with the claim that the usage of hormones to produce larger cows, which would produce more milk, led to an increase in childhood obesity in Jalikistan. The author has passed three statements in support of his claim. On an overview, the claim seems believable based on the facts. However, on analyzing the claim on all perspectives, one can identify various loopholes and flaws within the argument. These flaws are a result of vague assumptions and facts that have been presented as evidence in support of the claim made by the argument.
The author vaguely says that many farmers started using the hormone in 1992. He has not specified how many does he mean by "many". A number would have helped to support the claim as one can only imagine how many farmers began this practice, and on how many cows was this practiced upon. Also, the year 1992 was a long time ago and the author has failed to mention if this practice is still continued today. No mention of the success or failure or other implications of this practice leads us to believe that this fact is based on incomplete data, and thus cannot be taken seriously.
A second claim is made by the author that childhood obesity in Jalikistan grew by 200 percent since 1992. However, how did he come to this number is not mentioned. The survey that may have given this data, might have been implemented on a particular population of the city where the children were more prone to obesity. Along with survey details, other details behind the cause of obesity, like obese family members, food habits, lifestyle, etc. would have helped to justify this claim that the author has clearly failed to mention.
Another statement made by the author that the lactose-intolerant children, who drink almond or soy milk, did not have the same increase in childhood obesity, is the weakest link in the argument. Almond and soy milk are healthier alternatives for cow milk, as they have much less fat in them. Stored fat is the main cause of obesity. Thus, the children who are taking cow milk alternatives will surely have a low risk of obesity. This has no relation with the hormones of the milk-producing cow, thus rendering this statement made by the author null and void.
The author has made an effort to prove his claim by providing reasons, which are clearly not adequate to take a stand on this matter. More knowledge on this matter, scientific researches and detailed survey details are required to make this claim believable, which the author has failed to do. Thus, the claim that in 1992 Jalikistan, growth inducing hormones used on cows led to an increase in childhood obesity, is not convincing as the argument has failed to present solid evidence in its support.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 476 350
No. of Characters: 2218 1500
No. of Different Words: 211 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.671 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.66 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.447 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.636 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.26 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.409 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.542 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.138 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 105, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... children, who drink almond or soy milk, did not have the same increase in childh...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, may, second, so, still, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2295.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 476.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82142857143 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67091256922 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59264041123 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466386554622 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 719.1 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.3011429795 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.7826086957 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6956521739 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.04347826087 5.70786347227 36% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.278209829842 0.218282227539 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0819049439464 0.0743258471296 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.084455419682 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151977960074 0.128457276422 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0228192189883 0.0628817314937 36% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.