Recent incursions by deep-sea fisherman into the habitat of the Madagascan shrimp have led to a significant reduction in the species population. With the breeding season fast approaching, the number of shrimp should soon begin to increase. Nonetheless, th

While the claim that Madagascan shrimp population will become an endagered species is supported by certain evidence, the evidence provided is insufficient to uphold the claim well and is presumptive, at best, without a strong basis. The assumption that the presence of deep-sea fisherman in the shrimp's habitat serves as the primary reason for the endangering species of Madagascan shrimp is, generally, a weak point on its own and should be further evaluated.

The presumtive connection between the presence of the fishermen and the decreasing number of shrimp does not have any evidence to support its own claim, other than the observations from "recent incursions." Further information needed to substantiate this assumption should include specific statistical comparisons demonstrating the data collected on the population of shrimp before and after the fishing boats were present in the shrimp's habitat. If data were collected in this timespan and follows after the claim to prove that there has been a "significant reduction in the species population," this would be beneficial analysis to strengthen the overall claim.

The correlation between shrimp population diminution and fishing activity is barely a parallel event, as the claim lacks basic evidence. Further evidence needed to establish a barebone hypnosis. For example, Madagascan shrimp is considered a delicacy around the south-eastern African countries. Or the fishing techniques of deep-sea fisherman includes fishing net with holes too small to let Madagascan shrimp escape. Then there should be data supporting the facts, so a sound hypnosis could be drafted. For example, market research denoting the per capita consumption of such shrimp surged over past years.

Second, how Madagascan shrimp reproduce should also be given some insight. If not excluded, the population diminishing theory will be false. For example, past year decline may contribute to weather changes, too warm or too cold water would prevent egg hatching of the shrimps. As shrimps lay large quantity of eggs, a reduction of population maybe a minor effect. If given this year all eggs hatch contrasting past years significant eggs dead. Also, an examination of the Madagascan shrimp's habitat during this time period as well could also provide insight into the decreasing population due to any environmental changes--water temperature fluctuations--or presence of other man-made factors, such as chemicals or garbage. The claim itself disregards any other external or internal factors, which could either support or disprove the claim entirely, based on the research conducted. If traces of such environmental or man-made factors than fishing boats were found, a whole new and improved claim would be made to describe the reasons for the decreasing population of shrimp.

While the excerpt includes basic conclusions based on observation, the general idea is not supported adequately to provide credible information. By including further insight from appropriate research and data collection, the overall claim that the decreasing number of Madagascan shrimp is due to the presence of fishing boats, eventually becoming endangered, would be reorganized and strengthened immensely.

Votes
Average: 9.4 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 296, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'shrimps'' or 'shrimp's'?
Suggestion: shrimps'; shrimp's
...e presence of deep-sea fisherman in the shrimps habitat serves as the primary reason fo...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 441, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'shrimps'' or 'shrimp's'?
Suggestion: shrimps'; shrimp's
...r the fishing boats were present in the shrimps habitat. If data were collected in this...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 555, 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
... the claim to prove that there has been a 'significant reduction in the spec...
^
Line 3, column 610, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...cant reduction in the species population,' this would be beneficial analysis to s...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 138, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
...ent, as the claim lacks basic evidence. Further evidence needed to establish a barebone...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 440, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean ''?
...can shrimp escape. Then there should be data supporting the facts, so a sound hypnos...
^^^^
Line 7, column 365, 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.
...ion of population maybe a minor effect. If given this year all eggs hatch contrast...
^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, second, so, then, well, while, for example, such as

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 30.0 16.3942115768 183% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2767.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 488.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67008196721 5.12650576532 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70007681154 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10763247001 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 204.123752495 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510245901639 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 845.1 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 95.3899758885 57.8364921388 165% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.35 119.503703932 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.55 5.70786347227 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.218941202507 0.218282227539 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0691061024691 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0639667176698 0.0701772020484 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136894787567 0.128457276422 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.052144756197 0.0628817314937 83% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 14.3799401198 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.9 12.5979740519 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.16 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 98.500998004 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 12.3882235529 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.

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: 21 15
No. of Words: 490 350
No. of Characters: 2680 1500
No. of Different Words: 238 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.705 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.469 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.884 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 217 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 177 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 125 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 82 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.325 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.31 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.5 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.057 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5