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 issue on animal conservation is as timely as ever. Recently, an editor of an environmental magazine has shown that there was a drastic decline in the variety as well as number of species of amphibians in Xanadu national park. The author of the argument suggests that this plummet of the amphibian species is due to the introduction of trout into the park. Though this issue on eliminating the trout for conservation of amphibians in xanadu has some merit, due to lack of proper evidence and weak assumptions the author's argument is unsubstantiated and deeply flawed.
First, the author of the argument has mentioned that the trout eats amphibian eggs. He considered that the trout was kept near the amphibian species. But this may not be true, the amphibians species habitat in the national park might be at different place compared to the trout habitat. If he clearly has an evidence of trout eating the amphibian eggs, then his conclusion would have been plausible.
Second, the author did not mention that there is no pollution of the water and air in the areas of Xanadu national park. He stated that most of the amphibian species have been died due to the global pollution, so this can also be one of the major reason for the decline of the amphibians in the Xanadu national park. Thus, decline in the species may be possible only due to the pollution of the environment and not due to the trout's.
Third, the author's assumption of the trout being responsible for eating the amphibian eggs is doubtful. If he adds the information about the number of trout's present in the national park and the average number of eggs which they eat, then the reasoning would be more complete. Otherwise, a lot of other situations such as due to improper availability of food for the amphibians and lack of proper care from the management of the national park could also be the reasons for their decline.
Despite the argument's flaws the author could strengthen his position by including the details of the environment conditions in the areas of national park from 1975 to 2002, and also by mentioning that the habitat locations of both amphibian species and trout's. If he gives additional details such as the number of amphibian species expatiated by the trout's due to eating their eggs could improve the author's reasoning and supports his conclusion. However, without adding all the above statements the author's conclusion will be implausible.
In sum, thus the authors argument is having a lot of flaws and we can cast doubt upon his argument due to lack of evidence about the habitat locations , statistical data of the amphibian eggs killed due to trout's as well as the environmental conditions of the xanadu area. He should also mention about the food availability for the amphibians in the forest, and also about the proper maintenance of the habitats of different animals in the forest by the authorities. Thus by including all these information we can come to a conclusion.
| 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 |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 63, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he argument has mentioned that the trout eats amphibian eggs. He considered that ...
^^
Line 3, column 181, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'amphibians'' or 'amphibian's'?
Suggestion: amphibians'; amphibian's
... species. But this may not be true, the amphibians species habitat in the national park mi...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 18, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... will be implausible. In sum, thus the authors argument is having a lot of flaws and w...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 151, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... of evidence about the habitat locations , statistical data of the amphibian eggs ...
^^
Line 7, column 473, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...imals in the forest by the authorities. Thus by including all these information we c...
^^^^
Line 7, column 495, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this information' or 'these informations'?
Suggestion: this information; these informations
... the authorities. Thus by including all these information we can come to a conclusion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'third', 'thus', 'well', 'such as', 'as well as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.252577319588 0.25644967241 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.104810996564 0.15541462614 67% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0996563573883 0.0836205057962 119% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0446735395189 0.0520304965353 86% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0274914089347 0.0272364105082 101% => OK
Prepositions: 0.149484536082 0.125424944231 119% => OK
Participles: 0.0343642611684 0.0416121511921 83% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.9587113235 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.020618556701 0.026700313972 77% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.139175257732 0.113004496875 123% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0223367697595 0.0255425247493 87% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00171821305842 0.0127820249294 13% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3040.0 2731.13054187 111% => OK
No of words: 509.0 446.07635468 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.97249508841 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74984508646 4.57801047555 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.333988212181 0.378187486979 88% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.265225933202 0.287650121315 92% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.202357563851 0.208842608468 97% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.14931237721 0.135150697306 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9587113235 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 207.018472906 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.388998035363 0.469332199767 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 44.1827764123 52.1807786196 85% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 28.2777777778 23.2022227129 122% => OK
Sentence length SD: 95.8574204834 57.7814097925 166% => OK
Chars per sentence: 168.888888889 141.986410481 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.2777777778 23.2022227129 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.777777777778 0.724660767414 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 3.58251231527 167% => OK
Readability: 54.800371098 51.9672348444 105% => OK
Elegance: 2.46601941748 1.8405768891 134% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.465479117799 0.441005458295 106% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.199708059819 0.135418324435 147% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.104260392178 0.0829849096947 126% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.687434489567 0.58762219726 117% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.16713733201 0.147661913831 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.246871037264 0.193483328276 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.122979844419 0.0970749176394 127% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.616805619136 0.42659136922 145% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0642218309206 0.0774707102158 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.362481198009 0.312017818177 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0756840020442 0.0698173142475 108% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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: 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.