Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic regions. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of the year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the purported decline in deer populations is the result of the deer's being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea.
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.
Recent reports from locals are suggesting that arctic deer may be declining in population. While this may concern the local hunters who reported the information, it cannot be confirmed nor denied without a proper investigation into the accuracy of the claim. Evidence and information regarding the number of dear, the melting of the ice, the hunters themselves, and the plantlife are required to properly evaluate the argument.
First, it is important to note that no specifics have been provided by the local hunters as to the number of deer. It is quite possible that the deer simply have been on one island that the hunters have not frequented as of late. Not knowing how many deer are actually out there prevents an argument of declining arctic deer to ever gain traction. If evidence came back revealing that the deer have not suffered a significant decline, the argument would be proved invalid. If, however, the evidence showed a decline, there are still holes in the argument that must be addressed.
For example, it is said that the ice is melting due to global warming, which may be preventing the deer from their normal mirgration patterns. Evidence is required to prove that their migration patterns have in fact been affected by such a melting of ice, as the argument currently does not provide this information. Without knowing where the ice has melted, it is unclear whether the deer have been significantly affected. Furthermore, if the ice has melted in certain areas but not others, it is possible the deer have adapted their migration patterns to new ice paths, consequently making it harder for the hunters to find them. This information could destroy the argument of a decline in arctic deer if the evidence came back indicating an insignificant correlation between ice and potential migration patterns.
Additionally, the hunters must be investigated as they have a particular invested interest in the problem. It is possible that the hunters overzealously attacked arctic deer and now the deer population has suffered a significant drop. The very fact that the hunters are the ones who reported this issue reveals that they have searched for them in the hopes of likely killing them. Not knowing the effect the hunters have on the decline in deer population allows room for error in determining the exact cause of the deer disappearence.
Finally, evidence regarding the plantlife must be provided to determine the cause of the decline in population. If, for example, the specific plants that these arctic deer consume is no longer as prevelant as in years past, then the deer population would suffer a decline; the supply and demand of plants and deer must be evaluated. It is possible that the ice melting has nothing to do with the decline in population, as the food source has become inadaquate to support the population of deer.
In conclusion, the argument proposed does not account for numerous other explanations reguarding the supposed decline in arctic deer population. Without evidence to prove the fallacious nature of the other explanations, it is unclear what the true cause of the deer decline is. If the evidence were to be provided, however, regarding the hunters, plants, ice, and deer population, then the explanation proposed in the argument may be properly evaluated. It is possible that all of the additional explanations explored above might be disproved with additional investigation, which would help validate the original explanation. However, without the evidence it cannot be said with certainty that the deer population is declining due to disrupted migration patterns at the hands of melting ice.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-28 | jenniferjack07 | 55 | view |
| 2020-01-28 | lanhhoang | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-19 | ken10091995 | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-12 | nimesh94 | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-30 | farhadmoqimi | 63 | view |
- Some people argue that successful leaders in government, industry, or other fields must be highly competitive. Other people claim that in order to be successful, a leader must be willing and able to cooperate with others. Write a response in which you dis 58
- Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic regions. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of the year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed and cold enough, at 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 11, column 475, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...properly evaluated. It is possible that all of the additional explanations explored above ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'but', 'consequently', 'finally', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'while', 'as to', 'for example', 'in conclusion', 'in fact']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.232522796353 0.25644967241 91% => OK
Verbs: 0.193009118541 0.15541462614 124% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0729483282675 0.0836205057962 87% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0531914893617 0.0520304965353 102% => OK
Pronouns: 0.031914893617 0.0272364105082 117% => OK
Prepositions: 0.126139817629 0.125424944231 101% => OK
Participles: 0.0759878419453 0.0416121511921 183% => Less participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 2.83833259546 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0212765957447 0.026700313972 80% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.127659574468 0.113004496875 113% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0227963525836 0.0255425247493 89% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0121580547112 0.0127820249294 95% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3667.0 2731.13054187 134% => OK
No of words: 598.0 446.07635468 134% => OK
Chars per words: 6.13210702341 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94510247834 4.57801047555 108% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.377926421405 0.378187486979 100% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.314381270903 0.287650121315 109% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.23745819398 0.208842608468 114% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.130434782609 0.135150697306 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83833259546 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 207.018472906 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.404682274247 0.469332199767 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 48.3126945367 52.1807786196 93% => OK
How many sentences: 25.0 20.039408867 125% => OK
Sentence length: 23.92 23.2022227129 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.231214242 57.7814097925 58% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.68 141.986410481 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.92 23.2022227129 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.72 0.724660767414 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 55.3581270903 51.9672348444 107% => OK
Elegance: 1.56284153005 1.8405768891 85% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.397347452051 0.441005458295 90% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.165701553096 0.135418324435 122% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0707659511697 0.0829849096947 85% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.635949893685 0.58762219726 108% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.127556048724 0.147661913831 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.190280791465 0.193483328276 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0568133250636 0.0970749176394 59% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.555297667914 0.42659136922 130% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0829105604067 0.0774707102158 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.296666212709 0.312017818177 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0247697520104 0.0698173142475 35% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 14.657635468 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.