Argument sets up a premise that the children in Himalayan mountain range, even after receiving little to no dental care, have lower level of tooth decay than children living in suburban areas of United States. The argument presented by the author is far from being cogent, and is rife with logical fallacies and assumptions.
Social conditions in Himalayan mountain region is not the same as that of suburban areas of United States. Staple diet of the two region could be different. Nepal might have a lack of sugar containing teeth contaminants, like candies, chocolate, ice-cream, sugar-soda etcetera. These contaminants being so popular among children, are the major cause of tooth decay and cavities. Paucity of these in a region might cause a major shift in number of tooth decay cases. A dearth of tooth decay cases could also result in lower usage regular dental care.
In addition to this, the author does not take the bubbly nature of children into account. While it is stated in author argument that children in United States visit an average of 1.25 times per year, which is more than children in Nepal; we do not know if children from suburban areas of United States follow the care suggested by these doctor. Author overlooks whether the suggested care is being enforced by the parents. It might possible that parents in United States are indulgent as opposed to their counterparts in Nepal. This might result in more cases of tooth decay in sub-urban region of United States.
Also, Nepal might be closer to its cultural roots and still follow the traditional cures suggested by the older generations. These cures contains local medicinal herbs and roots, which might be better suited to their teeth. These would result in reduction in regular dental checkups in the region. Moreover, the state of doctors might be shoddy. They might not be proficient enough in their jobs. Argument also fails to state the number of doctors per child in the said places. These might result in people of Himalayan region of Nepal to be apprehensive to go for a regular dental check up.
Moreover, author overlooks the fact that Nepal is a developing nation, while United States is a developed one. All the appointments in United States are recorded and compiled into databases. These databases are used for further research and extrapolation for patterns to increase effectiveness of the overall treatment process. These data, in turn, also gives a precise account of how many of children came for professional appointments in suburban region of United States. Nepal might not be able to support such a large scale technology as of now. It could be the case that Nepal have enough dentists but those appointments are not being recorded or reported properly. More research therefore is needed for drawing any general comparison on the state of regular dental care.
Finally, it is imprudent to take just two distant cases to extrapolate a general conclusion. These two specific regions does not depict the comprehensive picture. The correlation presented in argument between dental care and tooth decay is still tenuous. Argument needs to site more general examples to make its case cogent. In conclusion, due to above-mentioned reasons; it might be too hasty to say that regular dental care is not helpful in preventing tooth decay. We might need to have more encompassing view of the problem at hand, before taking any decision.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 138, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'contain'.
Suggestion: contain
...d by the older generations. These cures contains local medicinal herbs and roots, which ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, if, look, moreover, so, still, therefore, while, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 87.0 55.5748502994 157% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2873.0 2260.96107784 127% => OK
No of words: 569.0 441.139720559 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04920913884 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88402711743 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62805183613 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 264.0 204.123752495 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463971880492 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 912.6 705.55239521 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 4.96107784431 302% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 33.0 19.7664670659 167% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.1733106025 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.0606060606 119.503703932 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2424242424 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.87878787879 5.70786347227 50% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.29993850836 0.218282227539 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0750656585065 0.0743258471296 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0940732921354 0.0701772020484 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.18167093077 0.128457276422 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0979927104859 0.0628817314937 156% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.71 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 98.500998004 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.