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.
The introduction of a new crop, especially one that has been man-made or manufactured can pose risks to the environments and it's surround ecosystems. So, the government of Tagus must direct a few questions to this international development organization before it allocates time, efforts and resources to promote this new type of millet.
Before addressing questions pertaining to the crop, we must question the validity of this international development organization, it's history and it's past initiatives within other nations like Tagus. The government must assign an individual to conduct research on this organization so as to prove that their basis for introducing this millet is at least pro-bono and truly for the benefit for Tagus. Any other motives aside from this should raise suspicions and incite further investigations.
The research conducted on this international development organization would also explain how the subsidies are generated and how much each farmer actually receives. In the case where the growth of this new millet actually requires more resources on the farmer's behalf, then the subsidies do not end up being an incentive as it is ultimately spent on harvesting the crop.
Additionally, if this new millet requires more environmental resources such as water, soil treatments, fertilizers and etc, then it will have a direct impact to the local environment and it's ecosystem. It could very well change the structure of the soil it's being planted on and prevent the farmer from conducting his/her regular crop rotation. Even worse, the land could potentially become damaged.
Vitamin A deficiency is definitely a serious problem and the government of Tagus should do everything possible to address this problem. However, the government must not make this decision hastily and conduct the appropriate research first.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2013-09-30 | apurva | 52 | view |
| 2013-09-22 | rubyho | 40 | view |
| 2013-08-02 | natasha_vinod | 40 | view |
| 2013-07-15 | smartaquarius10 | 37 | view |
| 2013-07-15 | zen123 | 68 | view |
Comments
Thank you for the quick reply
Thank you for the quick reply and advice.. Guess I'm not ready for the essay portion, heh.
Not really. Start to read
Not really. Start to read essays by other users and submit more.
Sentence: So, the government of Tagus must direct a few questions to this international development organization before it allocates time, efforts and resources to promote this new type of millet.
Description: A noun, plural, common is not usually followed by a noun, singular, common
Suggestion: Refer to allocates and time
Sentence: Before addressing questions pertaining to the crop, we must question the validity of this international development organization, it's history and it's past initiatives within other nations like Tagus.
Description: A pronoun, personal, nominative, 3rd person singular is not usually followed by a noun, singular, common
Suggestion: Refer to it's and history
Description: A pronoun, personal, nominative, 3rd person singular is not usually followed by an adjective
Suggestion: Refer to it's and past
Sentence: Additionally, if this new millet requires more environmental resources such as water, soil treatments, fertilizers and etc, then it will have a direct impact to the local environment and it's ecosystem.
Description: A pronoun, personal, nominative, 3rd person singular is not usually followed by an adjective
Suggestion: Refer to it's and ecosystem
Did you mean 'its'?
flaws:
Argument 1 -- NOT OK. Only argue flaws from statement not by knowledge or thinking.
Argument 2 -- OK
Argument 3 -- NOT OK. Same mistake as Argument 1 .
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 12 15
No. of Words: 288 350
No. of Characters: 1535 1500
No. of Different Words: 166 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.12 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.33 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.026 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 110 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 90 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.307 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.583 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.346 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.653 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.106 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5