The following is a letter from the parent of a private school student to the principal of that school:
Last year, Kensington Academy turned over management of its cafeteria to a private vendor, Swift Nutrition. This company serves low-fat, low-calorie meals that students do not find enjoyable – my son and several of his friends came home yesterday complaining about the lunch options. While the intent of hiring Swift may have been to cause students to eat healthier foods, the plan is just going to cause students to bring their own, less healthy lunches instead of eating cafeteria food. If Swift is not replaced with another vendor, there will be serious health consequences for Kensington students.
The author states that a letter from the parent of a private school student was sent to the principle complaining regarding the food quality provided by the new vendor, Swift Nutrition. Parent in his letter has mentioned that his son and his friends were complaining that the food is not 'enjoyable'. I feel that parent has overlooked the nutrition values the food has and instead concerned more about food to be 'enjoyable'.
It is not mandatory that every food has to be enjoyable and maintain its nutrition values at the same time. Sometimes, in order to maintain the fat and calories, less sugar is added to the food which makes them less tasty or enjoyable. Children like more of sweet and junk food which taste good rather than food with less taste but more nutrition. I feel parent should not blindly believe what students are saying. Instead, they must visit the cafeteria and inspect the food quality and its nutritional values.
The parent who wrote the letter, claim the food to be of low-fat and low-calorie without any personal inspection. Students might be correct, but he assumed everything to be correct. He further states that if such food is provided then students will have to bring less healthier food from their homes. His assumption that home food is less healthier is completely wrong. In fact, no food is healthier than home made food. Cafeteria food will always be incomparable to home food. So, there is no harm in brining home food for lunch. On the contrary, it is better if students can bring their won food from home.
The parent also states that if Swift nutrition is not replaced with another vendor, there will be serious health consequences for Kensington students. Here, he will be absolutely true if, the food provided by Swift is really low in fat and calories. I appreciate his concern for the students. Principal should consider his request and check with the food. parent should also join the inspection of food in order to see what he wrote to the principal was actually true or not.
Thus, we can conclude that the assumptions made by parents based on feed backs from students may not be correct. He should have substantiated his request properly. Cafeteria food often are less enjoyable to the students, it is an open fact. This does not mean food is lacking nutritional values. However, based on student feed back, an inspection of food should be scheduled soon and parents should also join the same for proper scrutiny.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-18 | Chayank_11 | 78 | view |
| 2019-12-06 | chapagain08 | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-28 | Walia Farzana | 49 | view |
| 2019-11-10 | Cursed God | 83 | view |
| 2019-10-29 | Vindo | 50 | view |
- The following appeared in a letter from the faculty committee to the president of Seatown University:A study conducted at nearby Oceania University showed that faculty retention is higher when professors are offered free tuition at the university for thei 86
- pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. After the recall, the pet food company tested samples from the recalled food 62
- According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year , fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year.And yet the percentage of positive reviews about specific Super Screen movies have increased in th 50
- A recent study indicates that children living in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal have lower levels of tooth decay than children living in suburban areas in the United States, despite the fact that people in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal re 50
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 264, Rule ID: LESS_COMPARATIVE[1]
Message: Non-standard use of the comparative or superlative. Did you mean 'less healthy'?
Suggestion: less healthy
...ovided then students will have to bring less healthier food from their homes. His assumption t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 335, Rule ID: LESS_COMPARATIVE[1]
Message: Non-standard use of the comparative or superlative. Did you mean 'less healthy'?
Suggestion: less healthy
...homes. His assumption that home food is less healthier is completely wrong. In fact, no food i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 357, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Parent
...er his request and check with the food. parent should also join the inspection of food...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 180, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[4]
Message: The adverb 'often' is usually put after the verb 'are'.
Suggestion: are often
...ed his request properly. Cafeteria food often are less enjoyable to the students, it is a...
^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'but', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'really', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'as to', 'i feel', 'in fact', 'on the contrary']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.244635193133 0.25644967241 95% => OK
Verbs: 0.175965665236 0.15541462614 113% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0815450643777 0.0836205057962 98% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0708154506438 0.0520304965353 136% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0536480686695 0.0272364105082 197% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.0987124463519 0.125424944231 79% => OK
Participles: 0.0429184549356 0.0416121511921 103% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.50995592351 2.79052419416 90% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0257510729614 0.026700313972 96% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0793991416309 0.113004496875 70% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0321888412017 0.0255425247493 126% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0107296137339 0.0127820249294 84% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2469.0 2731.13054187 90% => OK
No of words: 424.0 446.07635468 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.82311320755 6.12365571057 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53775939005 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.313679245283 0.378187486979 83% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.240566037736 0.287650121315 84% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.172169811321 0.208842608468 82% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.122641509434 0.135150697306 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50995592351 2.79052419416 90% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 207.018472906 93% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.455188679245 0.469332199767 97% => OK
Word variations: 49.4654641572 52.1807786196 95% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.039408867 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.3076923077 23.2022227129 70% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.8857696244 57.7814097925 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.9615384615 141.986410481 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3076923077 23.2022227129 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.615384615385 0.724660767414 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 40.3642960813 51.9672348444 78% => OK
Elegance: 1.28571428571 1.8405768891 70% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.339363306717 0.441005458295 77% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.130694247706 0.135418324435 97% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.103550492631 0.0829849096947 125% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.493144336773 0.58762219726 84% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.135037647405 0.147661913831 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.118787361105 0.193483328276 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.102520219155 0.0970749176394 106% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.407113096758 0.42659136922 95% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0438625482061 0.0774707102158 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.238939477574 0.312017818177 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0729533339642 0.0698173142475 104% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.33743842365 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 5.36822660099 37% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.