The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.
"In 1975 a wildlife census found that there were seven species of amphibians in Xanadu National Park, with abundant numbers of each species. However, in 2002 only four species of amphibians were observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. There has been a substantial decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide, and global pollution of water and air is clearly implicated. The decline of amphibians in Xanadu National Park, however, almost certainly has a different cause: in 1975, trout—which are known to eat amphibian eggs—were introduced into the park."
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 following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.
In the letter to the editor, the author concludes that the number of amphibians in Xanadu National Park decreased significantly in 2002, citing the introduction of trout in 1975 as the main reason for the decline. The author comes to this contention based on a 1975 census and 2002 observations made in the park. While it might be true that the trout are the reason for the disappearance of amphibian species in the park, before we can adequately assess the validity of the argument, the author needs to provide three pieces of additional evidence.
For starters, the author needs to provide evidence that the 1975 census was done correctly, thus the results from the census are valid. For instance, the census could be conducted by a group of high-school students where they could mistakenly classify non-amphibian species with amphibians. In addition, it is possible that, even if the species classified as amphibians are true, the census was not scientifically correct, so there is a lot of erroneous enumerations in the data. If both of these two scenarios were proven to be accurate, the persuasiveness of the author’s argument would be hampered.
Furthermore, the author has to provide evidence that the disappearance and decline of amphibian populations were due to the introduction of trout in the park. However, this might not be the case. Like other amphibians outside Xanadu National Park, it is probable that the diminishing amount of amphibians was because the water and air in the national park were highly contaminated. Moreover, even if the introduction of trout in the park threatens the amphibian populations, the author needs to provide that trout actually significantly harm the number of amphibians. What if there is not enough amount of trout in the park to justify the disappearance of amphibian species in Xanadu? These missing pieces of evidence could diminish the validity of the author’s contention.
Finally, the author assumes that the amphibians and its eggs occupy the same area of the park as the trout. It is probable that the staff working in the park, knowing that the introduction of trout could harm the population of amphibian species in the long run, deliberately separate the two into different areas of the park from the inception. It could also be possible that, even if they share the same environment, the workers separate the amphibians eggs to a different place in order to prevent them from being devoured by trout. Without providing evidence that these scenarios were false, the author’s conclusion would be considerably weaken.
In conclusion, although the writer’s assertion might hold water, he/she has to provide additional evidence to cast any doubt that would weaken their persuasiveness.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-30 | tomlee0205 | 54 | view |
| 2023-04-16 | AtharvaKale | 55 | view |
| 2023-01-02 | mahyarr | 58 | view |
| 2023-01-02 | mahyarr | 83 | view |
| 2022-10-20 | TE | 54 | view |
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 447 350
No. of Characters: 2249 1500
No. of Different Words: 184 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.598 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.031 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.882 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 155 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 121 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 95 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.833 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.833 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.385 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.576 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.145 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, thus, while, as to, for instance, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2317.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 446.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19506726457 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5955099915 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98189503557 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.430493273543 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 714.6 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.0567413597 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.722222222 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.7777777778 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.94444444444 5.70786347227 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.273049018911 0.218282227539 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0983606928497 0.0743258471296 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0741369720924 0.0701772020484 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.156508324257 0.128457276422 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0875327612791 0.0628817314937 139% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.3799401198 108% => 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: 13.18 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.