The following appeared in the summary of a study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia.
"Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates, for the past several decades, foodprocessing companies have also been adding salicylates to foods as preservatives. This rise in the commercial use of salicylates has been found to correlate with a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in our twenty year study. Recently, foodprocessing companies have found that salicylates can also be used as flavor additives for foods. With this new use for salicylates, we can expect a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The above argument presents a claim based on a number unwarranted assumptions. The grounds on which salicylates has been claimed to be beneficial for use as flavor additives, appear short-sighted and irrational. Besides, the lack of sufficient evidence to corroborate the argument, further renders it incredulous.
To begin with, there is nothing in the argument that validates the feasibility of salicylates to be used for treating headaches, just like aspirin. Although it might be from the same chemical family, yet salicylates may contain subtle differences in its chemistry that might make its functioning significantly different from that of aspirin. It is known that even minute changes in the arrangement of atoms or molecules generate a whole new behavior of elements and materials. Hence, without being aware of the exact nature of its chemical constituents and properties, one can hardly assume the functioning of salicylates. Valid proof is necessary to substantiate the presumption that salicylates work in the same manner as aspirin.
Secondly, the argument cites a study where participants reported a decline in the average number of headaches. This has been correlated with the rise in the commercial use of salicylates in foods as preservatives. However, no accurate investigation has been incorporated in the argument to validate the assumed relation between the increase in salicylates with the decrease in number of headaches. It is possible that the latter is brought about by other factors like yoga or meditation, rather than the higher intake of salicylates. Besides, whether the cited study was conducted uniformly across all strata of the resident classes in Mentia, is not confirmed in the argument. If the study was confined to only a few households, the results would not be representative of the whole of Mentia. It might be so, that the respondents never suffered from any headaches in the past, or had negligible instances of such problems. In that case, the intake of salicylates had nothing to do to lower their headache, since they actually did not have any in the first place. Hence more authentic proof of the credibility of the study was necessary to corroborate the claim.
Third, the argument postulates that with the use of salicylates as flavor additives for food, there would be a further decline in the number of headaches of Mentia residents. However, without any proof of assurance that this practice would not instead affect the health of the residents adversely, the claim appears putative. There are no citations of any examination reports or physician’s approval for the incorporating salicylates as food flavors, that gurantees its safety. It has been already stated that salicylates are used as preservatives. Even if it indeed caused a decline in headaches, using the same now additionally as flavoring agent might be unsuitable. It might cause side effects other than deteriorating head aches.
In conclusion, the argument would have been benefitted by a liberal incorporation of evidences and proofs that might have contradicted the doubts regarding its cogency. First, it should have contained a a valid proof that the salicylates work in the same fashion as aspirin, to corroborate its role in subsiding the headache problems of Mentia residents. Second, the argument should have cited how the study was conducted to give us an insight into the nature and to verify the reliability. Third, the argument could have benefitted by stating how the use of salicylates as flavoring agent would help alleviate the problems of headaches further.
- The luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasonin 50
- If you were am employer, which kind of worker would you prefer to hire: an inexperienced worker at a lower salary or an experienced worker at a higher salary? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer. 78
- The widespread use of the internet has given people access to information on a level never experienced before. How does this increase in the availability of information influence life in today's world? 86
- Formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free. 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 you take. In developing and 54
- The well being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority. 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 you take. In developing a 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 527, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...thout being aware of the exact nature of its chemical constituents and properties...
^^
Line 5, column 10, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he same manner as aspirin. Secondly, the argument cites a study where partici...
^^
Line 5, column 1066, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ly did not have any in the first place. Hence more authentic proof of the credibility...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 146, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... that might have contradicted the doubts regarding its cogency. First, it should ...
^^
Line 9, column 203, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: a
...ogency. First, it should have contained a a valid proof that the salicylates work i...
^^^
Line 9, column 203, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ogency. First, it should have contained a a valid proof that the salicylates work...
^
Line 9, column 203, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'a' or 'a' is left.
Suggestion: a; a
...ogency. First, it should have contained a a valid proof that the salicylates work i...
^^^
Line 9, column 479, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nsight into the nature and to verify the reliability. Third, the argument could h...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'besides', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'third', 'in conclusion', 'to begin with', 'in the first place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.25 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.15664556962 0.15541462614 101% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0680379746835 0.0836205057962 81% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0458860759494 0.0520304965353 88% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0284810126582 0.0272364105082 105% => OK
Prepositions: 0.153481012658 0.125424944231 122% => OK
Participles: 0.0522151898734 0.0416121511921 125% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.11015116135 2.79052419416 111% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0205696202532 0.026700313972 77% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.123417721519 0.113004496875 109% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0253164556962 0.0255425247493 99% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0142405063291 0.0127820249294 111% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3617.0 2731.13054187 132% => OK
No of words: 572.0 446.07635468 128% => OK
Chars per words: 6.32342657343 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89045207381 4.57801047555 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.388111888112 0.378187486979 103% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.318181818182 0.287650121315 111% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.255244755245 0.208842608468 122% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.178321678322 0.135150697306 132% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11015116135 2.79052419416 111% => OK
Unique words: 273.0 207.018472906 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.477272727273 0.469332199767 102% => OK
Word variations: 57.615875699 52.1807786196 110% => OK
How many sentences: 27.0 20.039408867 135% => OK
Sentence length: 21.1851851852 23.2022227129 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.4534871496 57.7814097925 58% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.962962963 141.986410481 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1851851852 23.2022227129 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.592592592593 0.724660767414 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 3.58251231527 223% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 53.0033670034 51.9672348444 102% => OK
Elegance: 1.97260273973 1.8405768891 107% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.614808525751 0.441005458295 139% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.117309219367 0.135418324435 87% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0618294192342 0.0829849096947 75% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.572429775142 0.58762219726 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.119029086772 0.147661913831 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.260847791289 0.193483328276 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0986324392721 0.0970749176394 102% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.484953825914 0.42659136922 114% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.120012537783 0.0774707102158 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.432194727157 0.312017818177 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0927463706439 0.0698173142475 133% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.82512315271 187% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 8.0 2.82389162562 283% => OK
Total topic words: 23.0 14.657635468 157% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: 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.