The following report appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.
"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds represent the most frequently given reason for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid — a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil — as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
This newsletter proposes that consumption of a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil could prevent people from getting cold and lower the absenteeism in schools and workplaces. It makes a report that in East Maria people go to hospital only once or twice to remedy colds after having a high level of fish consumption, and getting colds is the most given reason of absenteeism. While in my opinion, unless the author provides more convincing evidence to bolster the argument, it does not hold water.
The newsletter credits the low-frequency of treating colds to the high consumption of fish in East Meria, it suggests that West Maria will have the same effectiveness to recommend the use of nutritional supplement derived from fish oil. Unfortunately, some more evidence should be addressed on whether the two cities are indeed comparable or not. If the weather condition in East Maria is warmer and moister than the West Maria, it will make people less likely to catch a cold, the effects of fish consumption in cold catching will be weakened. Moreover, some other factors may be different from the two cities which will influence the resistance of getting cold, for instance, the atmosphere of doing sports in a community may influence the frequency of doing exercise among the citizens; the intensity of population may lead to different ability and possibility of cold spread. More evidence should be given to convince that fish consumption is the core factor which could prevent getting cold. Regardless of the issue concerning whether the conditions of West Maria liken to East Maria or not, it could not blindly replicate others served as a model.
The newsletter states briefly the most frequently given reason for absences in schools and workplaces is getting colds, and indicates that preventing colds could reduce the absenteeism. However, the author should provide more evidence to ensure getting colds is the only and real reason for absences, but not others. A student may falsely claims that he get a cold and wants to get the application to leave school, but his true purpose is playing computer games in the cybercafe; or a staff may lies that he has a cold in order to get a permission of absence to date with his girlfriend. In these cases, the causality between getting colds and absenteeism will be weakened. For powerfully persuading people to believe that getting colds is the true and only reason of absences in schools and workplaces, the Public Health Council must lend a survey researched by an objective institution including accuracy and truth of the answers.
Since the high consumption of fish in East Maria has a relationship with the decrease in cold getting, the author predicts the consumption of a supplement derived from fish oil will also prevent colds. However, the author doesn’t afford sufficient testimonies to strengthen the ingredient that really prevents colds in the body of fish is the fish oil. If it is the ingredient in the bones or the flesh has the effect of preventing colds, or several ingredients among fish body work together to prevent colds, or the ingredient could only take effect after being heated, the author’s statement will be weakened. Accordingly, to strengthen the argument, the Public Health Council has to testify it is the ingredient in the fish oil, as the only effective ingredient, could have the same result of eating whole fish.
To sum up, the newsletter’s suggestion to recommend the daily use of a supplement derived from fish oil as a mean to avoid colds and absenteeism remains to be discussed. It is highly recommended to provide more evidence which could support and strengthen the recommendation better.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-27 | ginagirl816 | 70 | view |
| 2019-10-07 | 08sandip | 39 | view |
| 2019-09-17 | arvind158 | 50 | view |
| 2019-09-11 | raolitesh@gmail.com | 59 | view |
| 2019-08-15 | lencialam | 72 | view |
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 613 350
No. of Characters: 3028 1500
No. of Different Words: 250 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.976 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.94 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.759 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 213 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 164 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 114 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 83 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.65 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.266 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.351 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.558 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.091 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 189, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'recommended providing'.
Suggestion: recommended providing
...m remains to be discussed. It is highly recommended to provide more evidence which could support and s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, briefly, but, however, if, may, moreover, really, so, then, while, as to, for instance, in my opinion, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.9520958084 178% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 11.1786427146 215% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 83.0 55.5748502994 149% => OK
Nominalization: 30.0 16.3942115768 183% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3111.0 2260.96107784 138% => OK
No of words: 612.0 441.139720559 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08333333333 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.97379470361 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87745933125 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 260.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.424836601307 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 938.7 705.55239521 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 62.9737048299 57.8364921388 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 155.55 119.503703932 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.6 23.324526521 131% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.55 5.70786347227 115% => 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 : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0696530038816 0.218282227539 32% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0276935776839 0.0743258471296 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0338485429685 0.0701772020484 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0457598828438 0.128457276422 36% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0239029478593 0.0628817314937 38% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 14.3799401198 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.49 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.78 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 137.0 98.500998004 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.