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 development interests are lobbying 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."
Argument that states, in order to preserve the region's biodiversity, council of West Lansburg should not allow the access road to be built is not entirely logically convincing and it ignores crucial assumptions as well as follows and incorrect analogy. Hence, there are major logical flaws in providing the proof for presented conclusion.
Firstly, the letter states that, in neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria, which had a similar wildlife sanctuary to West Lansburg had noticed population decline since the repeal of the sanctuary status of the region. Now, it is not completely logical to imply that the decline in the population of sea otter in Eastern Carpenteria was only because of revoking the sanctuary status of that region. There can be number of reason that had a play in the cause. For example, it could be climate change that made sea otters to move somewhere else or maybe it could be a desease that had killed many sea otters. Just because there was a decline in population of sea otters after repeal of sanctuary status does not mean that that is the only reason behind it.
Now, coming back to West Lansburg and its tufted groundhog, the argument compares the situation of Eastern Carpenteria's sea otters with West Lansburg's tufted groundhogs. There is not sufficient evidence that suggests that is analogy is logical. Assuming that the reason behind decline in population of sea otters in Eastern Carpenteria was because of revoking status of sanctuary, it is not necessary that same is applicable on groundhogs in WL. The environment that is auspicious for tufted groundhog is clealy different than that of sea otters. The effect of human intefere will be quite different on groundhogs than it was on sea otters thus making the comparision invalid.
Evidently, the argument that letter presents are not logically sound. The evidence in support to the conclusion that building of access road should not be allowed is not sufficient. Since the analogy with sea otters is not very reasonable, the council of WL should conduct a proper study on the wetlands and lives of tufted groundhogs and whether the making of access road through the wetland wil have adverse efffects on them and the results of this study should help in making this decision.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-15 | Apollo100 | 55 | view |
| 2019-11-14 | Roshan Dhakal | 77 | view |
| 2019-11-12 | AAAA2222 | 69 | view |
| 2019-10-06 | vismay0110 | 77 | view |
| 2019-08-18 | Mehnu | 59 | view |
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 16
- he diagrams below show the design for a wave-energy machine and its location.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant. 67
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. has been updated. 50
- Rich countries often give money to poorer countries, but it does not solve poverty. Therefore, developed countries should give other types of help to the poor countries rather than financial aid.To what extent do you agree or disagree? 73
- The graph shows Underground Station passenger numbers in London.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 56
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 14 15
No. of Words: 376 350
No. of Characters: 1859 1500
No. of Different Words: 162 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.403 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.944 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.622 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.857 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.303 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.357 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.349 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.565 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.083 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 48, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
...t that states, in order to preserve the regions biodiversity, council of West Lansburg ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 523, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style.
Suggestion: from
...or tufted groundhog is clealy different than that of sea otters. The effect of human...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, hence, if, may, so, thus, well, for example, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1901.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 376.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.05585106383 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40348946061 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67721675093 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.449468085106 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 586.8 705.55239521 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.852988483 57.8364921388 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.733333333 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0666666667 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.73333333333 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.192953040945 0.218282227539 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0663339913953 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0756956757501 0.0701772020484 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118847549131 0.128457276422 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0641247371861 0.0628817314937 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.