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.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
In the given prompt, the author suggests that the government of Tagus should take necessary steps to promote the adoption of this newly engineered breed of millet and provide subsidies for the same. The author arrives that this conclusion based on the premise that adoption of this new breed of millet would help suffice the vitamin A deficiency among the people of Tagus. However, the conclusion drawn by the author might hold water, it rests on several unwarranted assumptions that, if not substantiated, dramatically weakens the persuasiveness of the argument. Before we could evaluate the suggestion, the following questions must be addressed.
First, the author cites that this newly engineered breed of millet would help suffice the vitamin A deficiency among the people of Tagus. However, the author fails to bolster his/her claim with statistical data regarding the same. Also, the scope and validity of the study is unknown. What is the sample size of the study? What is the content of vitamin A per gram? How many people suffer from vitamin A deficiency? How much intake of new breed of millet would provide the requisite amount of vitamin A? Unless the author presents the laboratory reports of this new breed of millet, its claim and reliability cannot be validated. If the above is true, then the conclusion drawn by the author does not hold water.
Furthermore, Are the farmers willing to grow this crop in their fields? It is probable that this new breed of millet might deter the efficacy of the agricultural activities. For instance, it is possible that this millet might invigorate soil erosion, invariably adversly affecting the fertility of the land. Also, the new millet might demand greater quantity of water and pesticides, adding to the cost of cultivation. Moreover, is it feasible for the government to subsidize this new breed of millet? As this new millet is recently engineered, it is highly likely that there exitst a huge demand of the new crop and therefore making it expensive. Thus, the government might not be able to acquire the requisite amount of seed for large-scale cultivation. If either of the above holds merit, then the argument is weakened.
Finally, Are the people of Tagus willing to adopt this new millet in their daily diet? Is the taste, nutrient composition and cooking techniques the same as the previous millet? It is natural proclivity of people to be reluctant to adopt new food in their daily diet, especially as it concerns the health directly.Is is probable that they do not adopt this new crop creating a bottleneck in demand-supply ration in the market. If the above is warranted, then the argument looses its persuasiveness.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now is considerably flawed due to its relaince on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to address the questions raised above and perhaps provide a scientific study to learn more about this newly engineered breed of millet and its effect on the people of Tagus, then we can evaluate the viability of the argument completely.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 26 15
No. of Words: 512 350
No. of Characters: 2501 1500
No. of Different Words: 216 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.757 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.885 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.682 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 178 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.692 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.287 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.615 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.305 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.48 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.112 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 315, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Is
...ally as it concerns the health directly.Is is probable that they do not adopt this...
^^
Line 7, column 315, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: Is
...ally as it concerns the health directly.Is is probable that they do not adopt this ne...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, regarding, so, then, therefore, thus, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 43.0 28.8173652695 149% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2575.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 510.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04901960784 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75217629947 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79105852489 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.441176470588 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 806.4 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 57.057644185 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.3703703704 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8888888889 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.55555555556 5.70786347227 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.402321633376 0.218282227539 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112187674446 0.0743258471296 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0984934941378 0.0701772020484 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.225120602495 0.128457276422 175% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0685700049432 0.0628817314937 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.