An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be paid subsidies for farming the new variety of millet. Since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt the new variety. To combat vitamin A deficiency, the government of Tagus should do everything it can to promote this new type of millet.
The author of the argument concludes that government of Tagus should go for the development of new type of millet in order to combat the vitamin A deficiency prevailing in the region. To corroborate the conclusion the author has cited various premises;vitamin A deficiency among the impoverished nation, subsidy given by the government to farmers for growing new type of millet and millet being the staple food of the nation. At the first sight these premises seem to bolster the argument, but on meticulous analysis shows otherwise. The reasons for the failure of the argument are delineated as follows;
Firstly, the author claimed that impecunious nation of the Tagus is suffering from vitamin A deficiency. At first this seems to supports the conclusion but particular regarding the number of poor people in the nation and among them how many are suffering from this disease. It may be plausible that there are only meager people suffering from it. For such a cases it can be corrected by simply providing them financial help or food, there is no need of such a big in crop.
Secondly, the argument states that subsidy will be provided to farmers for raising this new type of millet by government. However, the data regarding how much the expenses for raising this type will be occur and what share of these expanses is provided by government. It may be possible that prices of growing the crop will be much more and government is providing only a small amount of these expanses in the form of subsidy. In such cases farmers will obviously refuse to grow the crop.
Last but not least, it is provided that millet is the staple food of the nation. However, it is not provided that people suffering from the deficiency take this food or not. Moreover, it may be possible that due its taste or high cost people had stopped consuming or purchasing it. Moreover, the dietary consumption of the people suffering from the deficiency are not provided. Which need to be changed, rather than changing the whole nation's diet.
To sum up the conclusion was based on the totally fallacious premises. In order to support the argument the author mus have provided some extra information like statistical data representing the number of people suffering from deficiency, exact cost of growing new type of millet and which food is consumed more in Tagus. Due to lack of such information the author's argument failed to hold the ground.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 129, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'support'.
Suggestion: support
...in A deficiency. At first this seems to supports the conclusion but particular regarding...
^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 357, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a case' or simply 'cases'?
Suggestion: a case; cases
...ager people suffering from it. For such a cases it can be corrected by simply providing...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 283, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Two successive sentences begin with the same adverb. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...had stopped consuming or purchasing it. Moreover, the dietary consumption of the people ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 358, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...us. Due to lack of such information the authors argument failed to hold the ground.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2013.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 413.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.87409200969 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50803742585 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6858445599 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.438256658596 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 630.9 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.2982845756 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.947368421 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7368421053 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.57894736842 5.70786347227 80% => OK
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 : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.355915874449 0.218282227539 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109402700874 0.0743258471296 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.098092266741 0.0701772020484 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.196681348631 0.128457276422 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0811309280219 0.0628817314937 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.89 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: 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.