An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be paid subsidies for farming the new variety of millet. Since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt the new variety. To combat vitamin A deficiency, the government of Tagus should do everything it can to promote this new type of millet.
To produce the desired effect of combating vitamin A deficiency in Tagus using this newly introduced millet variety, the government of Tagus must put the following points into consideration as they are very sacrosanct to the workability of this proposed project:
First, the government should consider how much subsidy is given to the farmers of this millet variety, is it enough to offset the cost incurred in the purchase in new seeds? This factor should be addressed at it will greatly influence the decisions of the farmers to adopt this new expensive variety over the cheaper variety they have been previously farming.
Also, the viability of this new untested variety of millet might make the farmers balk its adoption, if this new variety though having very high vitamin A, is not resistance to the weather conditions and the prevalent plant diseases in the town of Tagus, then the proposed project might not yield the desired benefits.
Another point that should be put into consideration is the acceptance of this new variety of millet by the general public; since the millet is a staple food, most people have become accustomed to its taste, its aroma, its cooking time, etc. an alteration of any of these which might result from mutations in the newly engineered millet might lead to a public opposition to its adoption. In addition to the government should also consider the type of Millet processing technique that is predominant in Tagus; vitamins do not withstand extreme cooking temperature; if cooking at very high temperatures is the predominant processing technique, the plan might be futile.
- An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be p 50
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 50
Comments
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: 6 15
No. of Words: 265 350
No. of Characters: 1323 1500
No. of Different Words: 139 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.035 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.992 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.679 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 101 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 76 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 48 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 44.167 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.954 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.525 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.832 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.166 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 108, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ce of this new variety of millet by the general public; since the millet is a staple food, mos...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 256, Rule ID: OF_ANY_OF[1]
Message: Consider simply using 'of' instead.
Suggestion: of
...a, its cooking time, etc. an alteration of any of these which might result from mutations...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, so, then, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 11.1786427146 9% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 13.6137724551 22% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1362.0 2260.96107784 60% => OK
No of words: 265.0 441.139720559 60% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13962264151 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 4.56307096286 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72350892967 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 204.123752495 70% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.535849056604 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 428.4 705.55239521 61% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 6.0 19.7664670659 30% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 44.0 22.8473053892 193% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 96.0485988098 57.8364921388 166% => OK
Chars per sentence: 227.0 119.503703932 190% => OK
Words per sentence: 44.1666666667 23.324526521 189% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.33333333333 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.313970306786 0.218282227539 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.152712313475 0.0743258471296 205% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0508399399438 0.0701772020484 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.19207089081 0.128457276422 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0188412854667 0.0628817314937 30% => 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: 24.9 14.3799401198 173% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 26.82 48.3550499002 55% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 20.5 12.197005988 168% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.42 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.99 8.32208582834 120% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 98.500998004 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 27.5 12.3882235529 222% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 19.6 11.1389221557 176% => OK
text_standard: 28.0 11.9071856287 235% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.