The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they were declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2004, development along the coastal wetlands has been prohibited. Now local development interests are lobbying for the West Lansburg council to allow an access road to be built along the edge of wetlands. Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria, which had a similar sanctuary, has seen its sea otter population decline since the repeal of its sanctuary status in 1978. In order to preserve the region's biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment, the West Lansburg council should not allow the road to be built.
In a letter to the editor of West Lansburg News, it is stated that in order to preserve the region's biodiversity and to ensure the healthy environment, the Western Lansburg council should not allow the access road to be built along the edge of the wetlands. The proponents of this letter has come to the conclusion that, building infrastructures and access roads on the coastal wetlands would bring significant decline on the population of tufted groundhog based on the decline seen in the population of sea otter on Neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria which had a similar sanctuary. However, before this recommendation can be properly assessed, three questions needs to be properly addressed.
First of all, are the biodiversity of Neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria in 1978 comparable to that of the biodiversity of West Lansburg in 2004? In other words, can it be assured that if there was a decline in population due to infrastructures in Neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria in 1978, then there would also be decrease here in West Lansburg? It may be possible that there were various other factors in Eastern Carpenteria that affected the population , and that may not be present here in West Lansburg. Further, there may be a possibility of having a significant discrepancy on biodiversity of these two places. So, either of these arguements have a merit, than the conclusion that was drawn in the letter would be significantly weakened.
Secondly, the presence of tufted groundhog was in abundance in ancient times, but is there similar presence of tufted groundhog now in 2019? From 2004 to now, there has been several changes in the population of various wildlife with increasing adveristies in the environment. So, there can be a chance that the population of tufted groundhog may have shifted to another place or have already extinct from that place till now. So, a proper evaluation of the demographics of those tufted groundhogs should be done before deciding whether the council should allow the road to be built or not. If there is no any presence of tufted groundhogs right now, there will be no point of not allowing the road to be built in the coastal wetlands, and would significantly weaken the conclusion of the letter.
Also, the fact that whether the road would be built with some considerations that would not deplete the population of tufted groundhogs should also be considered. Now, with modern technology and advancements in science, developments of infrastructures can be done in accordance to the ecosystem, so whether this project of building road encompasses any of those methods, which would bring no any harm to the existing population of tufted groundhogs should also be assessed. For instance, by knowing that a dam would bring substantial affect in the population of fishes that goes downstream of upstream for spawning, the engineers designed a fish ladder in such a way that, the dam would now no longer affect the population of fishes. So, is there any chances of such measures that are applied in the process of developement should also be seen. If so, then the conclusion of not allowing the road based on the assumed hypothesis to be built would be significantly weakened.
In conclusion, the arguement ,as it stands now, do not seem plausible. For the recommendation to be evaluated properly, proper assessment of these things are to be done. If the letter writer can answer these problems, then only a certain conclusion can be reached and proper suggestion can be made in regard to the building of the road.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-18 | sandeshbhandari2 | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-15 | Apollo100 | 55 | view |
| 2019-11-14 | Roshan Dhakal | 77 | view |
| 2019-11-13 | nikit | 69 | view |
| 2019-11-12 | AAAA2222 | 69 | view |
- The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations, so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment. 66
- The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they were declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2004, development along the coastal wetlands has been pr 69
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 588 350
No. of Characters: 2898 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.924 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.929 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.976 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 205 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 159 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 116 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 78 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.045 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.81 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.327 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.54 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.09 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 94, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
...is stated that in order to preserve the regions biodiversity and to ensure the healthy ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ns needs to be properly addressed. First of all, are the biodiversity of Ne...
^^^
Line 5, column 457, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...Carpenteria that affected the population , and that may not be present here in Wes...
^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r would be significantly weakened. Secondly, the presence of tufted groundh...
^^
Line 9, column 605, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...he road to be built or not. If there is no any presence of tufted groundhogs right...
^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...aken the conclusion of the letter. Also, the fact that whether the road wou...
^^
Line 13, column 392, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...any of those methods, which would bring no any harm to the existing population of ...
^^
Line 17, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t would be significantly weakened. In conclusion, the arguement ,as it stan...
^^
Line 17, column 31, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ned. In conclusion, the arguement ,as it stands now, do not seem plausible....
^^
Line 17, column 340, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... in regard to the building of the road.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, for instance, in conclusion, first of all, in other words, in regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 37.0 19.6327345309 188% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 28.0 12.9520958084 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 93.0 55.5748502994 167% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2979.0 2260.96107784 132% => OK
No of words: 588.0 441.139720559 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06632653061 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9242980521 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01859455489 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.397959183673 0.468620217663 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 904.5 705.55239521 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 66.842014297 57.8364921388 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.857142857 119.503703932 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0 23.324526521 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.42857142857 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.141668925685 0.218282227539 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0523146519061 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0525430653462 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0891206736992 0.128457276422 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0652180220996 0.0628817314937 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.3799401198 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 48.3550499002 107% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 98.500998004 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => 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.