The following editorial appeared in the Broomall County Times-Picayune:
"The Gordon Act, which established a wildlife refuge in the Big Dark Swamp, is currently up for reauthorization. The act prohibits the building of roads or cutting of old growth trees in the swamp, though it permits hunting. Many blamed logging activities for the decline of the bird population, especially that of the dappled grackle. The grackle population has continued to decline since the passage of the law, demonstrating that the Gordon Act has not been sufficient to protect the species. Another nearby refuge, the Wayne County Marsh Habitat, bans all mining, logging, and hunting. Wayne County officials have not reported a decline in the grackle population there. This proves that hunting, not logging, was responsible for the population drop in Broomall County. Thus, Broomall County should not reauthorize the Gordon Act unless it is amended to include the same provisions as those in Wayne County."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The editorial from the Broomall County Times-Picayune reaches the conclusion that the Gordon Act must not be reauthorized unless it is amended to have the same provisions as that of a nearby refuge, the Wayne County Marsh Habitat. This conclusion was drawn on the premise that the ban on hunting has preserved the population of the dappled grackle in Wayne County, and that the current ban on development of roads and logging did not suffice to preserve the grackles of the Big Dark Swamp. There are three main unstated assumptions that have been made in the editorial, which must be discussed in detail to deduce the implications of evidence arising against them.
First, the argument makes the assumption that the Wayne County Marsh Habitat and the Big Dark Swamp have the exact same conditions. In other words, it assumes that a measure taken in one of them must also apply in the other. But what if their climate differs, or if one of the habitats was hit by a heat wave or some other weather condition? Are they really similar enough to warrant the banning of hunting in the Big Dark Swamp? Will any change made in habitat A also work in habitat B? Sufficient evidence has not been provided in the editorial to deduce the answers to these questions. Hence, if this assumption proves unwarranted as a result of any potential evidence, then the argument falls apart.
Second, the argument assumes that hunting is the cause of the declining grackle population of the Big Dark Swamp, and that there is no other possibility. This is a causal assumption, that assumes that just because hunting has not been banned unlike in other counties, the decline of the bird population must be a result of these permissions. However, the decline could also be a result of some other factors, such as increase in local populations of a predator species. There is not enough evidence to prove that hunting, by itself, is the main cause of the population decrease, and that there is no other potential cause. Thus, the argument makes an assumption along the lines of 'correlation equals causation'.
Finally, the editorial assumes that the Gordon Act was properly enforced in its first version. It may be the case that the Act were passed, but no further actions were taken to enforce and effectively execute it. Another associated assumption made is that a new version of the act, drafted along the lines of that of Wayne County, would solve the problem of the declining grackle populations. It may be possible that non-legislative measures could help, and that simply passing an Act may not solve the problem. Evidence must be provided to support the real need for amending the act before its reauthorization
In conclusion, the argument made in the editorial, in its current form, is considerably flawed and fails to address the issue effectively. Multiple unstated assumptions are made with no substantiative evidence, and with incorrect conclusions drawn. The county lawmakers should perhaps make a comprehensive report of the grackle populations in the Big Dark Swamp and in other nearby habitats, and must not leave a single stone unturned, in terms of exploring the possibilities for the root cause of the problem. If they are able to logically identify that hunting is indeed the culprit of the problem, then they can go ahead and make a valid argument. To reiterate, the current form of the argument would require significant overhaul to make a convincing proposal.
- The following report appeared in the newsletter of GoldenAge Independent and Assisted Living Facilities for Seniors A novel therapy has come to our attention that promises to significantly decrease the incidence of dementia in our aging community Accordin 58
- An ailing patient should have easy access to his or her doctor s record of treating similarly afflicted patients Through gaining such access the ailing patient may better determine whether the doctor is competent to treat that medical condition Write a re 66
- The United States of America should dispense with the Electoral College At present the president and vice president are selected in a process that does not give equal weight to all voters Apart from Maine and Nebraska states select electoral votes based u 66
- A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labor Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim a 66
- The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than did the 60
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 463, Rule ID: A_RB_NN[1]
Message: You used an adverb ('also') instead an adjective, or a noun ('work') instead of another adjective.
... Swamp? Will any change made in habitat A also work in habitat B? Sufficient evidence has n...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, really, second, so, then, thus, in conclusion, such as, as a result, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2889.0 2260.96107784 128% => OK
No of words: 584.0 441.139720559 132% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94691780822 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.91590194646 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76254569746 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 258.0 204.123752495 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.441780821918 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 918.0 705.55239521 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 1.67365269461 538% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.6865608164 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.375 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3333333333 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.625 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.169714986479 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0475617457289 0.0743258471296 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0560140704976 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10053958661 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0596912771699 0.0628817314937 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 98.500998004 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 463, Rule ID: A_RB_NN[1]
Message: You used an adverb ('also') instead an adjective, or a noun ('work') instead of another adjective.
... Swamp? Will any change made in habitat A also work in habitat B? Sufficient evidence has n...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, really, second, so, then, thus, in conclusion, such as, as a result, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2889.0 2260.96107784 128% => OK
No of words: 584.0 441.139720559 132% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94691780822 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.91590194646 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76254569746 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 258.0 204.123752495 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.441780821918 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 918.0 705.55239521 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 1.67365269461 538% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.6865608164 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.375 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3333333333 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.625 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.169714986479 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0475617457289 0.0743258471296 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0560140704976 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10053958661 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0596912771699 0.0628817314937 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 98.500998004 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.