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 speaker talks about situation in Kensington Academy, where the academy has handed the management of cafeteria to private vendor, Swift Nutrition. This company serves nutritious food, but the speaker states that students do not find this food as enjoyable, which derives itself from statements by his son and his friends. The speaker suggests that, though the intention was to introduce good food to students, but as they don't find it enjoyable, they will bring less healthy home made food to eat. Concluding that, Swift shall be replaced with another vendor or there would be bad health consequences for students. This argument rests on some assumptions for which there is no evidence provided.
Firstly, the speaker should provide evidence regarding "whether most of the students find the food provided by Swift Nutrition unenjoyable". The statement about students not enjoying the food is derived from opinion of a limited group which is not representative of entire student body. Since, enjoyability of food is based on subjective thinking, opinion of limited group over such matter can not be representative. Questions to answer to verify this should be - "Do most part of student body find the food by Swift Nutrition unenjoyable?"
Secondly, the speaker states that if students find the food in cafeteria unenjoyable, they would bring home-made food which would be unhealthy. This is based on two assumptions, for which no evidence is presented. First is, if students find cafeteria food unenjoyable, they would start bringing home-made food. Second is, the home-made food brought by students will be necessarily less healthy. It might turn out that, although the food is unenjoyable, students won't bring home-made food. In additon to that, home-made food might be more healthy that food provided by Swift Nutrition in the cafeteria. These assumptions can be answered with - "What is the possibility of students bringing home-made food, if they find cafeteria food unenjoyable?" and "Is the home-made food bought by students less healthy?"
Lastly, the speaker makes a conclusion which points at serious healthy hazard for students at Kensington Academy, which can be stated as far-fetched without substantial evidence. The locality Kensington students come from might be from families who care more about health. Hence, this health hazard seems implausible to happen. Kensington Academy board might be concerned about health of students and has several initiatives to guarantee good health and health education to it's students. Since, health depends on holistic parameters and not on food alone, the prediction seems unwarranted without any evidence.
To sum it up, the arguments seems plausible, but makes several unwarranted assumptions. It should evaluated if most students find food by Swift Nutrition unenjoyable, if they would bring home-made food in backdrop of them finding the food unenjoyable. They should also evaluate possibility of home-made food being less healthy and possibility of health hazard holistically.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-18 | Chayank_11 | 78 | view |
| 2019-12-06 | chapagain08 | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-28 | Walia Farzana | 49 | view |
| 2019-11-10 | Cursed God | 83 | view |
| 2019-10-29 | Vindo | 50 | view |
- Zoos and the lecture "not-in-support" 85
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoni 70
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be 50
- Company management should conduct routine monitoring of all employee e-mail correspondence. Such monitoring will reduce the waste of resources such as time and system capacity, as well as protect the company from lawsuits. 66
- zoos 75
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not OK. Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
If Swift is not replaced with another vendor, there will be serious health consequences for Kensington students.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 473 350
No. of Characters: 2500 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.664 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.285 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.751 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 186 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 153 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 74 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.708 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.147 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.374 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.56 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.14 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 426, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...duce good food to students, but as they dont find it enjoyable, they will bring less...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, regarding, second, secondly, so, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2616.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 471.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.55414012739 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65859790218 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0263973388 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.43949044586 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 766.8 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.364856334 57.8364921388 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.909090909 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4090909091 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.81818181818 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.115786116869 0.218282227539 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.049243785635 0.0743258471296 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0516715924205 0.0701772020484 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0786007221477 0.128457276422 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0452699183691 0.0628817314937 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
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: 14.91 12.5979740519 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.