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 author of the passage makes an argument for the adoption, advertisement and promotion of a new millet to combat a vitamin A deficiency in Tagus. They use a few assumptions to put forth this argument by assuring people will readily consume this product, and that the farmers will gladly produce the new millet because of subsidies. While this logic may seem reasonable, the author makes a few unwarranted assumptions, in particular, three questions need to be answered.
First, are we sure the people of Tagus will readily adopt this new version of millet? The taste, texture, consistency, and ability to use it in different dishes could vary from the original millet. This may lead to the poor sale or rejected use of the new millet. Further, they may even reject the new strain so much they go back to the original millet which is antithetical to this initiative in the first place.
Second, has this millet been run through proper scientific experimentation and a trial period? No mention is given to if this government has taken the necessary steps to run this through proper vetting. Rushing any type of health product -- whether it be a drug, vaccine, medical device -- to market without proper experimentation and documentation on a small group of people can have devastating and far-reaching effects.
Lastly, are we sure the farmers willing to be on board with growing this new millet? Despite getting subsidies to offset the expensive seeds, farmers may not have reserve capital, labor or infrastructure to grow other crops. By focusing so much on the vitamin A deficiency with this new millet, it may keep farmers from growing traditional and beneficial crops. As such, you might have another deficiency on your hands if the farmers abstain from growing healthy foods like grains, citrus, vegetables and legumes. That puts all parties -- the farmers, the NGO and the government -- back at square one. I assume this is not the type of whack-a-mole game that these people want to play.
This argument could be made substantially stronger if the aforementioned NGO and a similar government in a similar region and climate partnered together to alleviate or eradicate a vitamin B, B12 or C deficiency. A study on the effectiveness, and the conclusions that can be drawn from it, would greatly boost the viability of this task at hand. Unfortunately, no such example exists and leaves the reader wary of its success. To reiterate, the author makes several unwarranted assumptions that could actually produce harmful effects for the people of Tagus.
- Educational institutions have an obligation to dissuade students from pursuing fields they are unlikely to succeed in. 66
- 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 83
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 58
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, if, lastly, may, second, so, while, in particular, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2142.0 2235.4752809 96% => OK
No of words: 424.0 442.535393258 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05188679245 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53775939005 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87900150464 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 215.323595506 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.537735849057 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 665.1 704.065955056 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.3994103733 60.3974514979 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.1 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.3 5.21951772744 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.339428482232 0.243740707755 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105419077851 0.0831039109588 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0861194457719 0.0758088955206 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.18544587448 0.150359130593 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0787651688139 0.0667264976115 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 100.480337079 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.