The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a farming publication.” With continuing publicity about the need for healthful diets and the new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar, nationwide demand for sugar should no doubt decline. Therefore, farmers in our state should use the land on which they currently grow sugar cane to grow peanuts, a food that is rich in protein and low in sugar. Farmers in the neighboring country of Palin greatly increased their production of peanuts last year and their total revenues were quite high.”
The author contends that the country he is referring to should produce more of peanuts for increased revenue of the country and for ensuring healthy diet for its citizens. This is based on the evidence of Palin country in which they saw high revenues from peanuts and the awareness about the deleterious effects of excess consumption of sugar. However, the argument is filled with various assumptions and one needs to be more comprehensive and specific to make it valid.
Firstly, the author has assumed that both environmental conditions of both countries are alike. That is they have similar type of land and weather. As humans we know, that the yield of crops depends largely on myriad of factors such as quality of land, top soil, temperature, rainfall, seasons, skills of farmers and technological advantages. Though the countries are neighboring, they may have completely contrasting environmental and weather conditions. There is a very high probability that the Palin country fulfills all the requirements necessary to produce peanuts but the land of the country the author refers to might not be fecund. Moreover, the skill sets of the farmers in both countries might be distinct and Palin may have access to better skilled farmers and advanced machineries to produce and harvest the crop which might not be the case in the country the author mentions.
Secondly, in the claim that similar land be used for growing peanuts which was once used for growing sugarcane, the author does not give or rather ignores specificity, that is, the land which is optimum for one type of crop might not at all be favorable for other. Instead, the countries could get into agreement whereby one country peddles sugar to them while other sells required quantity of peanuts to them in a way that is lucrative to both the country’s governments and their residents.
Thirdly, the author assumes only peanut as the alternative to high protein intake. What if people in the country the author refers to loath taking it and sales don’t happen? In that case, the entire investment of growing peanuts might be rendered futile and fruitless. There are various alternatives to high protein apart from peanut such as meat, cashew and other vegetables. The author doesn’t mention anything about the types of protein intake food the citizens would themselves prefer. Taking a decision only on the basis of results of neighboring country is completely unwarranted.
Fourthly, the author of the argument assumes that the extent of research about the harmful effects of sugar has reached everyone and all are aware about it. The author has presented nothing about the country he refers to – what is it’s size, how developed the country is, what are the employment opportunities for people, population density or its overall population. There is a great chance only a selected few might be aware of the research published. Others might be oblivious of it. Likewise, the extent of reach of publicity might be misleading as it might have ignored rural areas which might constitute huge amount or even most of the population of the country.
Fifthly, the research in context is only recently published and recent claims can’t be taken at face values. It might still be under development, open to debates and criticism and might even be debunked in the distant future.
Sixthly, the author claims that Palin country saw significant increases in revenue in the preceding year. But it doesn’t give an extent as to how high it has increased from its previous year(s). The author doesn’t provide a systematic analysis on a year on a year basis not are there any charts or numbers illustrating demand, supply or revenue details. Simply arriving to a conclusion on the basis of just one year is sheer stupidity. As we all know, whatever must go up must come down. Likewise, the increase could be offset by dwindling sales in the coming years.
Seventhly, the author has assumed that the country will be successful in delivering peanuts without mentioning how it will reach end consumers. The author does not state and give any pre-defined safety standards of supply chain. If the country is underdeveloped or if there is a natural or man-made calamity, it might fail both in its process of growing crops and delivering the same.
Hence, we can conclude that the factors present by the author in the claim needs to be more detailed, comprehensive and specific to make it sound.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-25 | tanawala1809 | 73 | view |
- “To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards.” 83
- The following recommendation was made by the Human Resources Manager to the board of directors of the Fancy Toy Company. “In the last three quarters of this year, under the leadership of our President Pat Salvo, our profits have fallen considerably. Thu 58
- The way a message is delivered is a more important factor than the message itself. 83
- Clearly, the successful use of robots on mission to explore outer space could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively, efficiently and profitably. The use of robots in factory would offer several advantages. Firstly, robots never get 74
- The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a farming publication.” With continuing publicity about the need for healthful diets and the new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar, nationwide demand for sugar should no doubt 73
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 34 15
No. of Words: 746 350
No. of Characters: 3618 1500
No. of Different Words: 321 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.226 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.85 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.615 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 266 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 204 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 117 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 76 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.941 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.585 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.267 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.535 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 9 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 102, Rule ID: NON3PRS_VERB[10]
Message: The pronoun is must be used with 'are'.
Suggestion: are
...tions of both countries are alike. That is they have similar type of land and weat...
^^
Line 5, column 177, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... or rather ignores specificity, that is, the land which is optimum for one type o...
^^
Line 9, column 414, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[6]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun might seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'little might'.
Suggestion: little might
...There is a great chance only a selected few might be aware of the research published. Oth...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, likewise, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, third, thirdly, while, apart from, as to, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 39.0 19.6327345309 199% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.9520958084 193% => OK
Conjunction : 30.0 11.1786427146 268% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 89.0 55.5748502994 160% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3750.0 2260.96107784 166% => OK
No of words: 743.0 441.139720559 168% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.04710632571 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.22092198188 4.56307096286 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75144331308 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 327.0 204.123752495 160% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440107671602 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1159.2 705.55239521 164% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 19.0 8.76447105788 217% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 34.0 19.7664670659 172% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.33629866 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.294117647 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8529411765 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.23529411765 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 9.0 5.15768463074 174% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.114057446993 0.218282227539 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0297134353616 0.0743258471296 40% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0489096048435 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0587452499163 0.128457276422 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0609954850216 0.0628817314937 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 186.0 98.500998004 189% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.