In the preceding argument the author states that humans are the main cause of large mammal species extinction, the conclusion of the argument is based on the following premises. Firstly, the author bolsters his assumption by stating that when people arrived in the Kaliko islands about 7.000 years ago, and within 3.000 years the large animals were extinct. Further, he claims that people used to hunt large animals for feeding purposes and the scientist discovered large bones discarded that people have been hunted them. Lastly, he states that there is no evidenced of using a sharp tools such as stone knives that could be used for hunting. Hence, in the first glance it may seem plausible. However, careful scrutiny sheds light on plethora of assumptions that could under mine the value of the argument.
To begin with, the readily states that the main cause of large mammals extinction is people over hunting. On one hand, even there is a positive and concrete relation between human arriving 7.000 ago and extinction of large mammals, this does not necessarily indicate a conspicuous relation between the two events.In other words, how he concluded the causation? Or, what the strong relation is? In deed, the possible explanation is perhaps decrease the food resources led to sharp decline on their numbers. Or the second explanation the climate has changed that affected the vitality of these animals. Thus, building a decision depends on weak assumption could mitigate the value of the argument.
Secondly, the fallacy of the argument also lies in using undefined language. What does the author mean by "large"? Also, which type of animals have been extincted? Hence, the author has to be precise and specific in his assumption. Then, he claims that scientists has found fish's boon, and concluded that the extincted animals were large mammals. To illustrate this, fish's are marine animals and varied in their size and all the large fish's presented on the deep seas and oceans and is not easy to hunt it, and what died were mammals this explain the ambiguity in the assumption.
Thirdly, he concluded that the researchers could not find sharps tools such as stone knives. Thus, the good question here how they used to hunt large animals without effective methods and equipment. In deed, the author explanation is vague! and requires further illustration. Additionally, the best explanation that people were not the cause of extinction because simply did not have the basic tools to do that. Hence, the assumption is lack a depth of details that would help to evaluate the significance of the argument.
In conclusion, the argument fails to mention one key factor. Namely, all the previous assumptions are equivocal. In sum, withot complete information and explanations the argument is unsubstantiated and opened to debate.
- Downtown Zurzi is becoming increasingly congested with traffic, increasing the commuting time for those who work downtown or near downtown. The nearby city of Loft was faced with the same problem several years ago and implemented a small weekly tax for dr 66
- In order for any work of art—for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song—to have merit, it must be understandable to most people.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the state 54
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?If people have the opportunity to get a secure job, they should take it right away rather than wait for a job that would be more satisfying.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 76
- In order for any work of art—for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song—to have merit, it must be understandable to most people.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the state 62
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Parents today are more involved in their children’s education than were parents in the past.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 73
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
flaws:
this is a new GRE argument topic. It is different to traditional GRE argument topics. look:
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argu
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 464 350
No. of Characters: 2308 1500
No. of Different Words: 226 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.641 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.974 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.533 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 165 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.846 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.404 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.615 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.269 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.453 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.085 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 64, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'mammals'' or 'mammal's'?
Suggestion: mammals'; mammal's
...ily states that the main cause of large mammals extinction is people over hunting. On o...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 314, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: In
...picuous relation between the two events.In other words, how he concluded the causa...
^^
Line 7, column 242, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: And
... deed, the author explanation is vague! and requires further illustration. Addition...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, hence, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, as to, in conclusion, such as, in other words, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2390.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 463.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16198704104 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63868890866 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68805920556 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.51403887689 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 725.4 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 54.4576948883 57.8364921388 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.9230769231 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8076923077 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.34615384615 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.211984832938 0.218282227539 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0460284280927 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.091930942735 0.0701772020484 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101782334451 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0785589915143 0.0628817314937 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.35 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.