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.
According to the presented memo by an international development organization, a new breed of millet high in vitamin A will be instrumental in combatting vitamin A deficiency rampant in Tagus and, as such, the government should promote it. At first sight, the argument appears logical and the organization should be commended for its effort to tackle this important issue. Presented this way, however, the recommendation cannot be fully supported as it rests upon a few unwarranted assumptions. If the organization reviewed and adjusted this proposal in consideration of the points below, it would be able to make a more compelling case.
One of the shortcomings of this memo involves the assumption that farmers will decide to farm this new variety of millet if they are subsidized because the seeds are costly. Opponents can question whether this assumption holds true on the ground that there are other potential incentives at play for the farmers to make this decision. For instance, in Tangus, agriculture in general may be no longer a sustainable industry and a vast majority of farmers are more inclined to stop their agricultural business. Even if they are subsidized to farm this product, then, the farmers are possibly reluctant to undertake this new project. In this manner, as the proposal clearly hinges upon this unwarranted assumption, it would need to ensure that farmers will follow through as long as they are subsidized. Had the organization offered evidence to address this concern, the argument would be more convincing.
Another point of contention is the assumption that this new type of millet will grow in a similar manner to the existing millet. Critics can raise a question of whether the organization has tested and confirmed that Tangus has the climate and infrastructure sufficient to do so. Without answering this question, the argument cannot be valid as the new breed of millet may require a different set of conditions for growth that Tangus cannot simply provide at this juncture. For this proposal to have more validity, then, the organization would benefit from presenting relevant information to address this concern.
Finally, the organization makes yet another problematic assumption that people in Tangus will consume the new type of millet just because millet has been a staple food. This conclusion is far-fetched at best as there are other possible factors that contribute to the wide consumption of millet. To give an example, characteristics of millet such as taste, texture, price, or a combination of these may be the reason why people in Tangus consume millet as a staple food. However, from the memo alone, we do not know the new type has these qualities. Even if it does, furthermore, there is no evidence that these qualities are the determinant for the fact that millet is widely consumed. Hence, in order to better assess the feasibility of this proposal, the organization will need to provide information regarding this assumption.
To sum up, while the proposal is not entirely invalid, it fails to address the aforementioned key assumptions. If the organization does not respond to these concerns without relevant evidence, this laudable effort can turn out to be ineffective.
- According to a recent report, cheating among college and university students is on the rise. However, Groveton College has successfully reduced student cheating by adopting an honor code, which calls for students to agree not to cheat in their academic en 34
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the pos 62
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the manager of WWAC radio station."To reverse a decline in listener numbers, our owners have decided that WWAC must change from its current rock-music format. The decline has occurred despite population growth i 88
- People's attitudes are determined more by their immediate situation or surroundings than by society as a whole.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position y 50
- The following appeared in a health magazine The citizens of Forsythe have adopted more healthful lifestyles Their responses to a recent survey show that in their eating habits they conform more closely to government nutritional recommendations than they d 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 86, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a similar manner" with adverb for "similar"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... that this new type of millet will grow in a similar manner to the existing millet. Critics can rai...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'finally', 'first', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'for instance', 'in general', 'such as', 'to sum up']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.227979274611 0.25644967241 89% => OK
Verbs: 0.158894645941 0.15541462614 102% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0846286701209 0.0836205057962 101% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0535405872193 0.0520304965353 103% => OK
Pronouns: 0.020725388601 0.0272364105082 76% => OK
Prepositions: 0.126079447323 0.125424944231 101% => OK
Participles: 0.0328151986183 0.0416121511921 79% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.0121380793 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0379965457686 0.026700313972 142% => OK
Particles: 0.00345423143351 0.001811407834 191% => OK
Determiners: 0.136442141623 0.113004496875 121% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0362694300518 0.0255425247493 142% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00345423143351 0.0127820249294 27% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3240.0 2731.13054187 119% => OK
No of words: 523.0 446.07635468 117% => OK
Chars per words: 6.19502868069 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78217453174 4.57801047555 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.393881453155 0.378187486979 104% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.304015296367 0.287650121315 106% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.221797323136 0.208842608468 106% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.154875717017 0.135150697306 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0121380793 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 207.018472906 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.474187380497 0.469332199767 101% => OK
Word variations: 55.5835800197 52.1807786196 107% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 23.7727272727 23.2022227129 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.4432107775 57.7814097925 58% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.272727273 141.986410481 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7727272727 23.2022227129 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.727272727273 0.724660767414 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 54.1742569094 51.9672348444 104% => OK
Elegance: 1.65925925926 1.8405768891 90% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.468197743714 0.441005458295 106% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0998072072436 0.135418324435 74% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0464651666995 0.0829849096947 56% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.570802298763 0.58762219726 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.103657844546 0.147661913831 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.184060899474 0.193483328276 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.111294169375 0.0970749176394 115% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.462944684015 0.42659136922 109% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.100831144176 0.0774707102158 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.311608688448 0.312017818177 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104556073428 0.0698173142475 150% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.