The feedback from the parent of a student regarding the management's decision in changing the cafeteria vendor, is highly welcomed.
However, the parent's reason stating that the vendor replacement, needs to be evaluated carefully, in the light of further evidences.
Firstly, the Kensington academy gave its cafeteria to a private vendor, Swift Nutrition. It is possible that the Vendor company might have provided with healthier food instead of tastier. Students being fond of tastier food, may have neglected the healthier food, expecting a tastier food.
Secondly, the parent has stated that meals supplied were of low-fat, low calorie to the students, which the students do find enjoyable. However, low-fat and low-calorie meals are prefered by the cafeteria in health point of view. A number of studies indicate that students who had low-fat, low-calorie food is free from child diabetes and blood pressure. So, this clearly shows that the parent is unaware of diet.
Further, the parent has concluded blindly that Swift Nutrition provided their child less healthy lunches. It would have been much more considerable, If the parent would have came up with empirical evidences. It is also possible that their ward might have not comfortable with the taste of the cafeteria food. Therefore, it is clear that the parent is reflecting only his child's aversion for the cafeteria food.
The parent themselves state the intent of Swift Nutrition to provide healthier food on one hand. On the other hand, paradoxically, the parent has stated that Vendor provided unhealthy lunches. Thus, it is clear that the parent's intention to make a bad remark against the cafeteria food.
In sum, the parent's argument is rife with holes and flaws. The parent should have came up with some supporting evidences in order to regret the cafeteria food for their ward. This argument needs supporting evidences to be accepted elsewhere.
- 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 meal 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.Write a response in which you di 66
- Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before; it means putting old ideas together in new ways 50
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 307 350
No. of Characters: 1566 1500
No. of Different Words: 158 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.186 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.101 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.559 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 119 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 95 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 67 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.158 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 3.407 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.366 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.65 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.132 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 7 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 175, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'come'.
Suggestion: come
... considerable, If the parent would have came up with empirical evidences. It is also...
^^^^
Line 10, column 221, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'parents'' or 'parent's'?
Suggestion: parents'; parent's
...thy lunches. Thus, it is clear that the parents intention to make a bad remark against ...
^^^^^^^
Line 12, column 13, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'parents'' or 'parent's'?
Suggestion: parents'; parent's
...inst the cafeteria food. In sum, the parents argument is rife with holes and flaws. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 12, column 83, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'come'.
Suggestion: come
...holes and flaws. The parent should have came up with some supporting evidences in or...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 55.5748502994 65% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1623.0 2260.96107784 72% => OK
No of words: 307.0 441.139720559 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28664495114 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63762001281 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 204.123752495 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.521172638436 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 482.4 705.55239521 68% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 21.694810899 57.8364921388 38% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 85.4210526316 119.503703932 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.1578947368 23.324526521 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.63157894737 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => 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: 0.274503378765 0.218282227539 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0935505723948 0.0743258471296 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0879773452247 0.0701772020484 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127458738185 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0874021668902 0.0628817314937 139% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.