The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News:
"The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they were declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2004, development along the coastal wetlands has been prohibited. Now local develoobbying for the West Lansburg council to allow an access road to be built along the edge of wetlands. Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria, which had a similar sanctuary, has seen its sea otter population decline since the repeal of its sanctuary status in 1978. In order to preserve the region's biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment, the West Lansburg council should not allow the road to be built."
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 states that the West Lansburg council should not allow the access road to be built to ensure a healthy environment of the tufted groundhog. While it may be true that there was a decreasae in the otter population in 1978, the author does not make a cogent case to convince the reader that the same would happen in the sanctuary of groundhogs. It is easy to understand the author's concern for the biodiversity of the region but his/her argument is rife with holes and assumption and thus, not strong enough to persuade the West Lansburg council from not laying down a road.
Citing the evidence of the ancient records, the author states that the tufted groundhog once numbered in millions, however, he/she has not provided with the current numbers of the animal's population. They are probably still in the millions. If there has not been any issue which is harming their population, then there is no reason for the author to worry. A major question which needs to be answered is : Why were they declared a sanctuary in 2004? The author has not provided evidence to support his statement of granting the sanctuary to the hogs. Was it because of the decline in their population due to human interference or were they poached for their body parts? If their population declined due to the increase in human activities in wetlands or because of poaching then, it would be a valid reason for the author to argue against the construction of a road. Unless, he/she provides the above information, it is unlikely to believe that the road would pose a threat to the region's biodiversity.
Additionally, the author provides evidence of the neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria, which had a similar sanctuary had a decline in the sea otter's population after revoking the sanctuary status in 1978. He/she implies the same would happen if the West Lansburg council decides to promote development along the coastal wetlands. The major assumption made here is that, it was the repeal of the sanctuary status which was the sole reason for the decline in the sea otter population. It may be true if the author would have backed his claim by proving that after the abrogation there were a increase in poaching activities or human-animal interactions whcih resulted in the death of the otters. But unfortunately the author has failed to do so. It is also possible that the a deadly epidemic occured at the same time which decreased the otter population.
The fact that it occured in 1978 is also an important factor to be taken into consideration. Probably, in 1978 more people would have a hobby of hunting in the wild and that would have resulted in the decline. After 1978 stringent laws could have been bought into action to preclude hunting as a hobby and people doing so would be punished severly. Therefore, restoring the otter population back to normal, even though it was no longer part of a sanctuary. To strenghten his/her argument the author would benifit if he/she would gather more facts and provide more evidence regarding the claims he/she has made.
The litany of unsupported assumptions seriously jeopardizes the certainity of the conclusion. If any one of the suppositions is proved to be false, the conclusion would be factually wrong and due to lack of evidence for certain claims, the argument is unlikely to convince the West Lensburg council to ignore the pleas of the local workers.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-18 | sandeshbhandari2 | 50 | view |
| 2019-10-06 | Adebayo | 63 | view |
| 2019-09-11 | banu.abdikadirova | 63 | view |
| 2019-09-11 | Ramzah Rehman | 16 | view |
| 2018-09-16 | dhruvsawhney | 24 | view |
- "Regulators and policymakers should respond to potential environmental threats even before the information is fully known or concrete." 83
- All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary. 54
- Fossil evidence indicates that the blompus an extremely large carnivorous land mammal inhabited the continent of Pentagoria for tens of thousands of years until its sudden decline and ultimate extinction about twelve thousand years ago Scientists have det 75
- "The most effective strategy for a company to use to maintain and increase profits over the long term is to maintain high ethical standards." 50
- An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be p 26
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not exactly
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 585 350
No. of Characters: 2765 1500
No. of Different Words: 250 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.918 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.726 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.635 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 195 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 143 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.375 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.521 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.31 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.494 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 181, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'animals'' or 'animal's'?
Suggestion: animals'; animal's
...rovided with the current numbers of the animals population. They are probably still in ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 982, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
...hat the road would pose a threat to the regions biodiversity. Additionally, the aut...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 140, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'otters'' or 'otter's'?
Suggestion: otters'; otter's
...ilar sanctuary had a decline in the sea otters population after revoking the sanctuary...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 510, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had backed'?
Suggestion: had backed
...opulation. It may be true if the author would have backed his claim by proving that after the abr...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 586, 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
...ng that after the abrogation there were a increase in poaching activities or huma...
^
Line 5, column 767, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'a' is left.
Suggestion: the; a
...iled to do so. It is also possible that the a deadly epidemic occured at the same tim...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, may, regarding, so, still, then, therefore, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 28.8173652695 149% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 76.0 55.5748502994 137% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2826.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 578.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8892733564 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90322654589 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70690334422 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 257.0 204.123752495 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444636678201 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 881.1 705.55239521 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.7145070152 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.75 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0833333333 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.70833333333 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.134723984644 0.218282227539 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0416847765404 0.0743258471296 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0580379857039 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0773198440483 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0548923324921 0.0628817314937 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.38 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 98.500998004 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.