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.
The author concludes here that the decline of Arctic deer population is due to global warming which cause the sea ice to melt. Stated in the way, the argument fails to provide specific evidences, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To support this conclusion, the author relies on reports by local hunters and global warming trends. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author’s conclusion. Therefore, the argument can be considered incomplete or unsubstantiated.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that the reports from local hunters is a valid source of information. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground since he does not provide more detail into what kind of report he is referring to. For example, we do not know what kind of information the report consisted of and how it was constructed. The report may have been based on the entire deer population, not specific to Arctic deer, and the local hunters’ observation may be unsubstantiated. Hence the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly stated the specific data and analysis of the decline of the deer population along with the validity of the report.
The author also points out that the local hunter’s reports coincide with the recent global warming trends, which have disrupted deer’s migration patterns. This again is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any clear correlation between decline of deer population and global warming trends. To illustrate further, the author does not provide any evidence that global warming trends have affected the sea ice of which the Arctic deer travel. It is common knowledge that global warming would have caused ice to melt; however, we cannot readily assume that it has disrupted the migration pattern of Canadian Arctic deer. If the argument had provided evidence that due to global warming and rise of the sea level, the often sought sea ice route by the deer has been subverted, then it would have been a lot more convincing to the reader.
Finally, the author claims that the population decrease of Arctic deer is the result of deer being unable to follow their migration pattern. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author’s conclusion in several critical respects, and raises several skeptical questions. For example, even if there is a correlation between the global warming trend and decrease in deer population, correlation does not necessarily prove causation. Why would deer population suffer because they can’t travel their migration route? Do the deer only mate in certain areas? If global warming trend wouldn’t it be easier to find a habitat warm enough for abundant plants on which they feed? Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide clear evidence, perhaps by way of a reliable analysis of the population decrease of Arctic deer. Finally, to better assess the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about what the local hunter’s report consist of.
| 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 |
- The following is part of a memorandum from the president of Humana University."Last year the number of students who enrolled in online degree programs offered by nearby Omni University increased by 50 percent. During the same year, Omni showed a significa 70
- The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants."Recently, butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. This change, however, has had little im 88
- Students should always question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively. 16
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 70
- 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 79
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 517, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...os; observation may be unsubstantiated. Hence the argument would have been much more ...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'finally', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'for example', 'in conclusion', 'kind of', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.264566929134 0.25644967241 103% => OK
Verbs: 0.146456692913 0.15541462614 94% => OK
Adjectives: 0.096062992126 0.0836205057962 115% => OK
Adverbs: 0.051968503937 0.0520304965353 100% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0346456692913 0.0272364105082 127% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.111811023622 0.125424944231 89% => OK
Participles: 0.0362204724409 0.0416121511921 87% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.81168792777 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0251968503937 0.026700313972 94% => OK
Particles: 0.00157480314961 0.001811407834 87% => OK
Determiners: 0.100787401575 0.113004496875 89% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0188976377953 0.0255425247493 74% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0173228346457 0.0127820249294 136% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3410.0 2731.13054187 125% => OK
No of words: 548.0 446.07635468 123% => OK
Chars per words: 6.22262773723 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83832613839 4.57801047555 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.414233576642 0.378187486979 110% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.301094890511 0.287650121315 105% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.204379562044 0.208842608468 98% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.125912408759 0.135150697306 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81168792777 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 207.018472906 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.430656934307 0.469332199767 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 50.2941164971 52.1807786196 96% => OK
How many sentences: 25.0 20.039408867 125% => OK
Sentence length: 21.92 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.2097075942 57.7814097925 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.4 141.986410481 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.92 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.56 0.724660767414 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 52.0294890511 51.9672348444 100% => OK
Elegance: 1.77027027027 1.8405768891 96% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.415336933982 0.441005458295 94% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.122907319577 0.135418324435 91% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0788444584905 0.0829849096947 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.546092643743 0.58762219726 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.142670366878 0.147661913831 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.177989199739 0.193483328276 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0722822880332 0.0970749176394 74% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.523076053298 0.42659136922 123% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0308252711038 0.0774707102158 40% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.316111118705 0.312017818177 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0488542842574 0.0698173142475 70% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.33743842365 168% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 11.0 6.46551724138 170% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 21.0 14.657635468 143% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.