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 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."
Author has written a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine in which he claimed that the decline of amphibians in Xanadu National Park has a different cause than the decline of amphibians worldwide. The argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, author needs to provide evidences to strengthen his justification.
First of all, author has mentioned that, according to the census, appeal of amphibians of seven different species in Xanadu National Park were present in 1975, but the situation in 2002 was not the same and only four species with drastic decrease in number were observed. It is important to check that the number has been continuously decreasing throughout these twenty-seven years or the number has suddenly dropped down in between any 4-5 years to predict the possibilities of drastic reduction. Hence, author needs to provide data regarding number of amphibians of each species from year 1975 to 2002 with interval of 4-5 years.
Furthermore, author has mentioned that, the reason of decrease in number in Xanadu National Park is different from the pollution of water and air, which was the reason for worldwide reduction. Causes of pollution of water and air are increase in industries, deforestation, increase in automobiles, use of plastic, etc. Hence, it is important to inspect the area surrounded by Xanadu National Park to find out any reasons for increasing pollution of water and air is present which will further be the reason of decline of amphibians in Xanadu National Park.
Lastly, the reason for decline of amphibians in Xanadu National Park is introduction of trout, which are known to eat amphibian eggs. The number of introduced trout in 1975 is a deciding factor to judge whether the all amphibian eggs are possible to be eaten by trout. Also, it will be helpful to check whether the number of trout are increased or decreased from 1975 to 2002 and if so, then by what percentage. Afterwards, as trout and amphibians are both parts of ecosystem it is required to check the reasons to eat all amphibian eggs by trout and not maintaining the balance of ecosystem.
To sum up, author needs to provide data with interval of 4-5 years from year 1975 to 2002, inspection report of the area surrounded by Xanadu National Park, Total number of trout and reasons to eat all amphibian eggs by trout to validate his point about drastic decrease of amphibians in Xanadu National Park.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-11 | riyarmy | 50 | view |
| 2023-07-20 | Tanmay Shikhare | 66 | view |
| 2023-03-07 | Ashlesha Ahirwadi | 60 | view |
| 2022-08-16 | Shruti Kale | 60 | view |
| 2021-07-14 | Ruffin_ | 62 | view |
- Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure to address the most compelling reasons and or examples that could be used to challenge your position Critical 16
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government industry or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation not competition 50
- In order to become well rounded individuals all college students should be required to take courses in which they read poetry novels mythology and other types of imaginative literature 50
- Claim Any piece of information referred to as fact should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future Reason Much of the information that people assume is factual actually turns out to be inaccurate 66
- The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College a private institution to the college s governing committee We recommend that Grove College preserve its century old tradition of all female education rather t 58
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, if, lastly, regarding, so, then, thus, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 12.9520958084 15% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 86.0 55.5748502994 155% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2028.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 408.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.97058823529 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49433085973 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78872889374 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.411764705882 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 616.5 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 58.6884261243 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 156.0 119.503703932 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.3846153846 23.324526521 135% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.69230769231 5.70786347227 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0788206881296 0.218282227539 36% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0396399085392 0.0743258471296 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.050713864793 0.0701772020484 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0631172664425 0.128457276422 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0753362750315 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 14.3799401198 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.47 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.14 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 98.500998004 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.9071856287 151% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, if, lastly, regarding, so, then, thus, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 12.9520958084 15% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 86.0 55.5748502994 155% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2028.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 408.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.97058823529 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49433085973 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78872889374 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.411764705882 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 616.5 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 58.6884261243 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 156.0 119.503703932 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.3846153846 23.324526521 135% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.69230769231 5.70786347227 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0788206881296 0.218282227539 36% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0396399085392 0.0743258471296 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.050713864793 0.0701772020484 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0631172664425 0.128457276422 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0753362750315 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 14.3799401198 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.47 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.14 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 98.500998004 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.9071856287 151% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.