While it may be agreeable, that children in United States face more dental issues than children residing in mountain of Nepal, as the context is backed with facts of statistics. But if we consider the argument as whole we can see there are lot of conclusion is affected by facile attributes of the argument, so argument need more convincing reason to defy the dental care system. Facts and subtle nuances uttered are loosely related to each other which in other way is rife with holes and assumptions. To generalize and understand the argument stated we would need to assess it more with convincing arguments.
It is rightly cited, the study has indicated the children residing in Himalayan mountain in Nepal has shown substantial lower level of tooth decay, although the facts is presented in paradox, we cannot compare two different geographies in the way stated in argument, that compares with States. Even though it is scientifically proven that, augmentation of tooth decay depends upon variety of aspects that depends on geographies, eating habit, drinking water and many more, there are myriad number of possibilities why children show such differences. It would be nice to have knowledge about, on what basis study have been : How many students were evaluated for the study ? What are the basis on which study was performed ? - it has lot of unquestioned scenarios which are not extrapolated in the study otherwise, we could have easily move to the conclusion.
Additionally, It has been stated in argument that children in U.S. on an averagely goes to dentist at least once a year,but it doesn't provide coherent fact to savvy the precise understanding. It fascinating to grow up to the fact that children who see doctor always go treatment, but lack of fact, that probably they would go for treatment or that would be regular doctor visit. So some points into the essay is just depends on brief surmise, which obliquely loosen the essence of the study.
Building upon the key points mentioned in argument, it would have skillfully maintained that even though in hilly mountainous ranges, people lacks proper dental care which but it doesn't show if they have substitutes for it. Nepal is very well known for Ayurveda as as alliance, which has more of the time been more prolific than existing medicines. There lot of disparate acts which would have lead key importance while extracting the conclusion of the topic. As stated in argument it is understandable, but fail to convince with conclusion that regular dental care fails to be helpful.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 835, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'moved'.
Suggestion: moved
...e study otherwise, we could have easily move to the conclusion. Additionally, It ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 120, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , but
...ely goes to dentist at least once a year,but it doesnt provide coherent fact to savv...
^^^^
Line 5, column 128, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... to dentist at least once a year,but it doesnt provide coherent fact to savvy the prec...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 180, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...e lacks proper dental care which but it doesnt show if they have substitutes for it. N...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 263, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: as
.... Nepal is very well known for Ayurveda as as alliance, which has more of the time be...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, may, so, well, while, at least
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2130.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 425.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01176470588 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75803581138 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.527058823529 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 663.3 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.3720404073 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.125 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5625 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.4375 5.70786347227 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.204816546514 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0638362180981 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0780298160583 0.0701772020484 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121505409048 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0680695705317 0.0628817314937 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.