A recent study reported that pet owners have longer, healthier lives on average than do people who own no pets. Specifically, dog owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease. In light of these findings, Sherwood Hospital should form a partnership with Sherwood Animal Shelter to institute an adopt-a-dog program. The program would encourage dog ownership for patients recovering from heart disease, which should reduce these patients' chance of experiencing continuing heart problems and also reduce their need for ongoing treatment. As a further benefit, the publicity about the program would encourage more people to adopt pets from the shelter. And that will reduce the incidence of heart disease in the general population.
In the passage, the author cited that Sherwood Hospital should form a partnership with Sherwood Animal Shelter to institute an adopt-a-dog program to reduce heart disease. At first glance, the assumption may seem right but this statement is flawed as the author failed to provide necessary shreds of evidence to corroborate his/her statement.
First and foremost, the author stated a recent study reported that pet owners have longer, healthier lives on average than do people who own no pets. So, the author assumed that making a partnership with animal shelter would help to reduce heart disease. This statement is flawed as it is based on an unclear study. The author didn’t mention any data relating to the study. It failed to provide information like when did the study take place or where did the study take place or who was the subject. These questions are unanswered in the passage. The study maybe took place with a small group of people or people who have pets. We can not be sure about the authenticity of the study from the passage. If the author would provide the necessary statement to advocate his/her statement then the assumption might be right.
Further, the author assumed that by collaborating with Animal shelter the program would encourage dog ownership for patients recovering from heart disease, which should reduce these patients' chances of experiencing continuing heart problems and also reduce their need for ongoing treatment. This assumption may seem right but there’s a glut of facts that are not clear from the passage. There are no data in the passage that can prove the fact that having a pet can reduce further heart disease treatment. Moreover, some people are allergic to dogs. So they won’t consider having a dog as a pet. Additionally, there’s a slew of reasons behind heart disease like bad food habits, smoking, genetic history. There’s a chance that making partnership with Animal Shelter would be as fruitful as assumed. So the assumption that encouraging people to have dogs as pets will reduce heart disease in the general population seems unwarranted without proper pieces of evidence.
Furthermore, the author assumed that by making a partnership with Animal Shelter, it would be publicity for them by encouraging more people to adopt pets from Animal Shelter. This assumption lacked to prove the point due to the paucity of evidence. There could be a chance that the public would purchase pets from another shelter or the people in that area already have enough pets.
To sum up, the assumption made by the author will be lost its strength without proper evidence.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-13 | jason123 | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-01 | samruddh_shah | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-26 | cnegus | 37 | view |
| 2019-09-25 | Depressed Soul | 55 | view |
| 2019-09-09 | krishnaprasad7 | 29 | view |
- A recent study reported that pet owners have longer, healthier lives on average than do people who own no pets. Specifically, dog owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease. In light of these findings, Sherwood Hospital should form a partnersh 55
- The luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals. 50
- Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition. 50
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?At universities and colleges, sports and social activities are just as important as classes and libraries and should receive equal financial support.Use specific reasons and examples to support your an 63
- Young people enjoy life more than older people do 71
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 23 15
No. of Words: 438 350
No. of Characters: 2136 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.575 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.877 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.479 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 163 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.043 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.86 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.478 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.315 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.485 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 707, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...enticity of the study from the passage. If the author would provide the necessary ...
^^
Line 7, column 384, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... in that area already have enough pets. To sum up, the assumption made by the au...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, if, may, moreover, so, then, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2211.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 434.0 441.139720559 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09447004608 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56428161445 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63661833582 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463133640553 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 684.9 705.55239521 97% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => 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: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.3218799118 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.1304347826 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8695652174 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 5.70786347227 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.250578857619 0.218282227539 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0750119430663 0.0743258471296 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112096191015 0.0701772020484 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12162153495 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0902355493496 0.0628817314937 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.77 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.