Recent incursions by deep-sea fishermen into the habitat of the Madagascan shrimp have led to a significant reduction in the species population. With the breeding season fast approaching, the number of shrimp should soon begin to increase. Nonetheless, the population should not return to the levels before the fishing boats arrived. Because this trend is expected to continue over the next several years, the Madagascan shrimp will quickly become an endangered species.
The author claims that the Madagascan shrimp will soon become an endangered species because of heavy fishing incursions in its habitat. However, the author has provided specious claims to support his main argument and has also provided insufficient and weak evidence to buttress his claims, due to which his argument has been weakened. Additional evidence is needed to strengthen his argument.
First, the author has stated that there have been heavy fishing incursions in the shrimp habitat, leading to a significant reduction in the shrimp population. However, evidence is needed to give concrete conclusions in this regard. Simply saying 'significant reduction' and 'heavy fishing' only undermines the claim, because it could be that the original population could have 2 million, and the incursions have led to a decrease of 10,000. Although this decrease could be significant in an absolute sense, relative to the original numbers, it still does not justify the conclusions that the shrimp population after breeding could not restore their numbers. If on the other hand, the shrimp population was 10,000 to begin with and the incursions caused a decrease of 5000, then the author's first claim could justify his conclusion. It is unknown exactly how many incursions have occurred, in what period of time in order to ascertain their frequency, as well as the actual decrease in numbers of the shrimp and specific evidence is needed in this regard.
The author also does not provide scientific evidence as to why exactly the shrimp cannot restore their numbers, replenish their population after breeding, but rather appeals to our beliefs that fishing alone can eradicate entire fish species. It has not been stated if the shrimp habitat, such as water quality, reefs and shelter the shrimp require in the ocean floor, as well as the food the shrimp require to survive and propagate, is being destroyed due to which the author fears that the shrimp population is in danger of becoming extinct. Specific evidence is also needed about the shrimp life cycle and reproduction propensity and potency in order to understand and fortify the author's claims that the shrimp population will die out due to the frequency of fishing incursions. If the shrimp can mate and reproduce only 5-10 times in their lifetime, then the author's concern is certainly justified in order to atleast maintain the shrimp numbers, but if the shrimp can repopulate at a high rate such as 10 times a year, and with great efficacy and good offspring survival rates, then with controlled and sustainable fishing practices, the shrimp population could very well increase. Also, no specific evidence is given as to the exact nature of the shrimp habitat in order to understand if the shrimp habitat and the wider ecosystem is unique to a certain region and thereby forbids the shrimp from relocating to different regions in order to escape the predatory presence of humans. If the shrimp can indeed relocate, or if their breeding occurs in a different region due to seasonal migration, then their offspring could be safe from fishing and over several years, lead to a fecund population which has the power to increase the shrimp numbers greatly in other regions, which undermines the author's claim that the shrimp will be endangered.
The author also does not state what else can be done to sustain the shrimp numbers and specific evidence is needed in this regard to offer credibility to the author's claims. Fishing alone cannot be responsible for completely eradicating the Madagascan shrimp, if other practices such as relocation, or fish farms are erected in order to allow the wild shrimp, in the seas and oceans, to survive and reproduce. Sustainable fishing practices, such as fishing licenses during various months of the year, and limiting the number of fishing boats and trawlers in a definite area, could help the shrimp to survive and thrive. Besides, over several years, such practices could very well allow the shrimp numbers to grow and allow the ecosystem to restore its equilibrium. Declaring some regions containing such shrimp as sanctuaries and wildlife reserves could also help protect the shrimp from wanton fishing. Evidence regarding natural processes which can threaten the shrimp population, such as oceanwater pollution through underwater vents releasing sulphur, carbon and heavy metals, new predators against which the shrimp has no defence mechanisms due to no previous encounters, new diseases, etc. is needed to ascertain whether fishing is the only main reason for the endangerment of the shrimp.
As stated, the author's claims are specious and require further evidence to further buttress and fortify the line of reasoning in order to provide a convincing argument. The rendering of such evidence will certainly help the credibility of the author's claims.
- Educational institutions should actively encourage their students to choose fields of study that will prepare them for lucrative careers 66
- Universities should require every student to take up a variety of courses outside the student s main field of study 66
- People s behaviour is largely determined by forces not of their own making 75
- Over the last 5 seasons Dallas Cowboys have won 17 out of 21 games against their bitter rivals the Washington Redskins Hence they are sure to make a clean sweep of this season as well 75
- Over the last 5 seasons Dallas Cowboys have won 17 out of 21 games against their bitter rivals the Washington Redskins Hence they are sure to make a clean sweep of this season as well 50
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 785 350
No. of Characters: 4003 1500
No. of Different Words: 294 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.293 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.099 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.571 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 329 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 240 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 157 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 91 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 34.13 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.298 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.783 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.407 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.582 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.154 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 352, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...m, because it could be that the original population could have 2 million, and the...
^^
Line 3, column 897, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
... many incursions have occurred, in what period of time in order to ascertain their frequency, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 410, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'surviving'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: surviving
... as well as the food the shrimp require to survive and propagate, is being destroyed due t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1650, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...eir offspring could be safe from fishing and over several years, lead to a fecund...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, however, if, regarding, so, still, then, well, as to, such as, as well as, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 33.0 11.1786427146 295% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 93.0 55.5748502994 167% => OK
Nominalization: 34.0 16.3942115768 207% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4083.0 2260.96107784 181% => OK
No of words: 785.0 441.139720559 178% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20127388535 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.29318915704 4.56307096286 116% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64014575147 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 311.0 204.123752495 152% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.396178343949 0.468620217663 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1237.5 705.55239521 175% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 32.0 22.8473053892 140% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 85.5759490485 57.8364921388 148% => OK
Chars per sentence: 170.125 119.503703932 142% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.7083333333 23.324526521 140% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.58333333333 5.70786347227 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.262393979729 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0910582283599 0.0743258471296 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0660164379685 0.0701772020484 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138106320665 0.128457276422 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0882231196737 0.0628817314937 140% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.4 14.3799401198 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.0 48.3550499002 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 169.0 98.500998004 172% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 11.1389221557 133% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.