The following is a letter from the parent of a private school student to the principal of that school:
Last year, Kensington Academy turned over management of its cafeteria to a private vendor, Swift Nutrition. This company serves low-fat, low-calorie meals that students do not find enjoyable – my son and several of his friends came home yesterday complaining about the lunch options. While the intent of hiring Swift may have been to cause students to eat healthier foods, the plan is just going to cause students to bring their own, less healthy lunches instead of eating cafeteria food. If Swift is not replaced with another vendor, there will be serious health consequences for Kensington students.
The above letter to principal is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily the argument is based on unwarranted assumptions which are stated below in order.
Firstly, the first word in the letter itself shows that there is no need of the letter to be written to such extent. 'Last year' denotes that Kensington Academy has hired Swift Nutrition for the last one year, which shows only one complaint from a parent. The argument says that Swift Nutrition serves low-fat, low on calory food which is healthy for the child. The parent himself/herself points out the nutrients that are been delivered to the child in such quantity which is good for health. The parent colloquial shows that he/she doesn't want his/her child to remain healthy. This was the first part of the argument which was not justified.
Secondly, in line 6, the argument mentions that several of his/her son's friends did not enjoy the healthy food which they complaint the day before. In these lines above there are any unanswered questions which need to be accountable for. There is an assumption in the number of friends that his/her friends are. There can be as less as 1 to 4 or most as 20 to 30, which again leaves us to assume the total number of students the Academy has. After the data of the number of students in Academy and friends can we assume the ratio is less or more. By this ratio we can conclude the severity of the problem faced by students, additionally, we need to take into account any other complaints from other students as well. Just concluding on given data we cannot come to the conclusion of the argument.
Lastly, the parent writes in the letter about the consequences that can occur which does not validate at all. The ramification mentioned by the parent is that his/her son will have to bring "unhealthy" food from home and eat instead of eating from the cafeteria. There is a huge blunder which is going on in the argument. It says that student will have to eat unhealthy food which might create a problem. In fact, the unhealthy food can make the child sick. A parent never speaks in the ill-will of the child.
I conclude by saying that, above argument gives answered assumptions on which the argument stays invalidated.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 493, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...such quantity which is good for health. The parent colloquial shows that he/she doe...
^^^
Line 3, column 533, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...The parent colloquial shows that he/she doesnt want his/her child to remain healthy. T...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 334, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[1]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...s/her friends are. There can be as less as 1 to 4 or most as 20 to 30, which again...
^^
Line 7, column 521, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...er speaks in the ill-will of the child. I conclude by saying that, above argumen...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, well, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1850.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 389.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.7557840617 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44106776838 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59885602584 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.491002570694 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 552.6 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.1180800812 57.8364921388 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 84.0909090909 119.503703932 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6818181818 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.86363636364 5.70786347227 50% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.142789366045 0.218282227539 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0415755418469 0.0743258471296 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0542170345876 0.0701772020484 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0702810644049 0.128457276422 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0643698881551 0.0628817314937 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.8 14.3799401198 68% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 71.14 48.3550499002 147% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 12.197005988 62% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.03 12.5979740519 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.48 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.