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.
In the letter to the editor of an environmental magazine, the author of the article erroneous suggests that the decline in the number of amphibian species and the decline in population of the number of amphibians of each species in Xanadu National Park is due to the introduction of amphibian egg eating trout rather than global pollution of water and air. However, the author has failed to provide cogent support for the argument provided.
The first question that the author needs to answer to support his conclusion is what were the various amphibian species than existed in Xanadu in 1975 and now. Also, he needs to clarify what type of amphibian eggs trout devour. If it is seen that the types of eggs eaten by trout were not available in Xanadu, the argument provided by the author will be flawed. Also, if trout introduction in 1975 played a major role in depleting the amphibian population of Xanadu, a steady decline in the population should be discernible in a year wise documentation of amphibian population. To bolster the claim made, the author should provide such a report.
The author has concluded that though the declining atmospheric conditions are responsible for decreasing amphibian population worldwide, it has no role to play in Xanadu. In doing so, the author has made the assumption that over the years the atmospheric conditions of Xanadu have not changed. However, the author has not provided any documentation to support his assumption. To strengthen his argument, the author should provide a detailed report showing that the environmental conditions in Xanadu has not deteriorated over the years. Unless such a proof it available it would be presumptive to relegate the role of environmental factors in decreasing the amphibian population.
Additionally, the author should cite the example what are the changes in amphibian population of other national parks where the atmospheric conditions have not changed drastically over the years and also no trout was introduced. In such parks, the amphibian population should not deplete drastically. This will underscore the conclusion made by the author that the introduction of trout is solely responsible for the decline in amphibian population.
Lastly, there may be numerous other reasons for the decline in amphibian population such as loss of habitat, scarcity of food, predation by other animals in the park, death by natural cause such as old age, inability to breed, loss of breeding partners etc. Unless the author negates either of these causes as a possible reason for the decline in amphibian population it would be presumptuous to blame the introduction of trout as the sole reason for the decline.
Therefore, to conclude unless the author gives evidence to show that the environmental conditions of Xanadu has not changed over the years and amphibian eggs eaten by trout were present in Xanadu, it would be fallacious to rule out atmospheric pollution as a probable cause of decline in amphibian population and solely relate it to the introduction of trout in Xanadu.
| 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 |
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of marketing at Dura-Socks, Inc."A recent study of Dura-Socks customers suggests that our company is wasting the money it spends on its patented Endure manufacturing process, which ensures that our 50
- 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 amphibi 50
- In a study of the reading habits of Waymarsh citizens conducted by the University of Waymarsh, most respondents said that they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a second study conducted by the same researchers found that the type o 62
- A recent sales study indicates that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent during the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants whose specialty is seafood. Moreover, the majority of f 66
- The following appeared in a memo from New Ventures Consulting to the president of HobCo, Inc., a chain of hobby shops."Our team has completed its research on suitable building sites for a new HobCo hobby Shop in the city of Grilldon. We discovered that th 61
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 538, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Unless” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...du has not deteriorated over the years. Unless such a proof it available it would be p...
^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'may', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.243947858473 0.25644967241 95% => OK
Verbs: 0.143389199255 0.15541462614 92% => OK
Adjectives: 0.102420856611 0.0836205057962 122% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0409683426443 0.0520304965353 79% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0204841713222 0.0272364105082 75% => OK
Prepositions: 0.162011173184 0.125424944231 129% => OK
Participles: 0.0446927374302 0.0416121511921 107% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.93265444424 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0316573556797 0.026700313972 119% => OK
Particles: 0.00186219739292 0.001811407834 103% => OK
Determiners: 0.130353817505 0.113004496875 115% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0204841713222 0.0255425247493 80% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00744878957169 0.0127820249294 58% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3065.0 2731.13054187 112% => OK
No of words: 498.0 446.07635468 112% => OK
Chars per words: 6.1546184739 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72397222731 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.395582329317 0.378187486979 105% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.295180722892 0.287650121315 103% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.210843373494 0.208842608468 101% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.164658634538 0.135150697306 122% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93265444424 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 207.018472906 92% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.383534136546 0.469332199767 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 43.2799160091 52.1807786196 83% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 27.6666666667 23.2022227129 119% => OK
Sentence length SD: 88.195017496 57.7814097925 153% => OK
Chars per sentence: 170.277777778 141.986410481 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6666666667 23.2022227129 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.555555555556 0.724660767414 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 57.1847389558 51.9672348444 110% => OK
Elegance: 2.2 1.8405768891 120% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.445336206362 0.441005458295 101% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.188862705494 0.135418324435 139% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0819764520269 0.0829849096947 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.68239749979 0.58762219726 116% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.17581939027 0.147661913831 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.212080532979 0.193483328276 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112089133091 0.0970749176394 115% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.549594742862 0.42659136922 129% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0674912534509 0.0774707102158 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.334388957761 0.312017818177 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103361240861 0.0698173142475 148% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: This is not the final score. 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.