Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic regions. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of the year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the purported decline in deer populations is the result of the deer's being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea.Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic regions. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of the year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the purported decline in deer populations is the result of the deer's being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea.
The author concludes that the declining population of Arctic deer is due to an increase in global warming. In support of the conclusion author cites two separate reports – first, the reporting of decreasing populations of the deer; second, the increasing global warming trends. However, the argument hinges on several other assumptions, which need to be tested
To begin with, the information that the deer population is decreasing is coming from deer hunters! As ironic it may seem that the hunters have raised this issue of decreasing numbers of deer in the region. Did they have any previous year’s data to conclude this? When and how did they conduct a survey of the population? What was the size of area in which they observed the population of the deer? Therefore, it must first be checked whether the hunter’s observation was correct in the first place. If, it is revealed that the local hunters miscalculated and reported wrongly the conclusion would be falsified.
Furthermore, another report that claims that increase in global warming leads to melting of sea ice and the deer could not move around in search of their food hence the decrease in population. While there is a possibility that it may have been the case, there is no specific quantified data that supports this assumption. How do we know that the global warming lead to melting of that specific ice mass which had plants that deer’s eat? It could be that due to the global warming impact the ice that melts was not that of the grazing area of the Arctic deer. If, that is indeed the case then deriving any conclusion based on this assumption would be incorrect.
To sum, the argument is based on assumptions which are not be supporting it. Without probing further questions it will not be possible to arrive at any definite conclusion. Relating observations by untrained hunters with global warming and extrapolating to reduction in deer population seems an overstretched argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 361, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...her assumptions, which need to be tested To begin with, the information that the ...
^^^
Line 2, column 100, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” 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.
...decreasing is coming from deer hunters! As ironic it may seem that the hunters hav...
^^
Line 4, column 565, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...of the grazing area of the Arctic deer. If, that is indeed the case then deriving ...
^^
Line 6, column 60, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...t is based on assumptions which are not be supporting it. Without probing further ...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'then', 'therefore', 'while', 'to begin with', 'in the first place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.240540540541 0.25644967241 94% => OK
Verbs: 0.178378378378 0.15541462614 115% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0702702702703 0.0836205057962 84% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0297297297297 0.0520304965353 57% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0324324324324 0.0272364105082 119% => OK
Prepositions: 0.12972972973 0.125424944231 103% => OK
Participles: 0.0621621621622 0.0416121511921 149% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.79867750583 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.027027027027 0.026700313972 101% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.118918918919 0.113004496875 105% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0216216216216 0.0255425247493 85% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0297297297297 0.0127820249294 233% => Maybe 'Which' is overused. If other WH_determiners like 'Who, What, Whom, Whose...' are used too in sentences, then there are no issues.
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1981.0 2731.13054187 73% => OK
No of words: 329.0 446.07635468 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.02127659574 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25891501996 4.57801047555 93% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.352583586626 0.378187486979 93% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.273556231003 0.287650121315 95% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.191489361702 0.208842608468 92% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.127659574468 0.135150697306 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79867750583 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 207.018472906 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.525835866261 0.469332199767 112% => OK
Word variations: 55.1124163316 52.1807786196 106% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 19.3529411765 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.5835721716 57.7814097925 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.529411765 141.986410481 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3529411765 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.705882352941 0.724660767414 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 46.7085642768 51.9672348444 90% => OK
Elegance: 1.79775280899 1.8405768891 98% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.376712409835 0.441005458295 85% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.161860359405 0.135418324435 120% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0827124982681 0.0829849096947 100% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.561930146977 0.58762219726 96% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.136028961546 0.147661913831 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.169133816943 0.193483328276 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0680439007158 0.0970749176394 70% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.435303961607 0.42659136922 102% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.14982635178 0.0774707102158 193% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.272033699508 0.312017818177 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0501456496851 0.0698173142475 72% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 10.0 14.657635468 68% => 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: 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.