Argument Topic: The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News:
"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."
The following prompt is a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News. The prompt suggests that the local development interests are lobbying for the West Lansburg council to allow an access road to be built along the edge of wetlands. The opposition to such a development suggests that constructing a road here would endanger the groundhog population, since the road will pass close to the wildlife sanctuary where these animals reside. The example of Eastern Carpenteria has been provided to provide evidence of the decline of sea otters to a similar construction. Hence, the concerned individuals think that the West Lansburg council should not allow the road to be built. The following argument as well as its evidences look legible in the first reading, but a close look suggests a few discrepancies that could weaken the argument as a whole.
Firstly, the comparison is being made between two completely different animals. Groundhogs are animals that are land animals. Sea otters on the other hand are animals that live in the water. The reason for the decline in sea otter population has been attributed to the removal of sanctuary status of the place where they lived in. There are alternate theories to this as well. There could be a possibility of an increase in predators that prey upon these sea otters, or they might be facing some diseases which might explain the decline in sea otter population. The decline of sea otters and the removal of the sanctuary status of the place where they were present can be entirely co-incidental.
Secondly, the time period over which this comparison is being made has a huge gap. The groundhogs of 2004 are being compared to the sea otters of 1978. These were two completely different times. Earlier, there was not much regard for the protection of animals. They were hunted and killed for sports and what not. But present day rules prohibits all such activities. There could be a possibility that the sea otters were hunted for fun and hence their population declined so drastically in 1978. On the contrary, the rules and regulations that have been put in place against such malpractices can help in preserving the groundhog population.
Additionally, the two places being compared are completely different. There is no evidence about the type of individuals that reside here. It is highly probable that the residents of West Lansburg are more aware about the groundhog population and therefore will take extra care when they are driving past the sanctuary. Majority of them might be animal lovers which would mean that they will take care when they drive by the sanctuary. In contrast, the residents of Eastern Carpenteria might not have been so careful with the sea otters which would have led to the decline of the sea otter population.
In sum, there are many alternate possibilities which when looked upon, casts a doubt on the reliability of the evidences that have been provided. Therefore, it cannot be categorically stated that building a road would lead to the decline in groundhog population.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 512 350
No. of Characters: 2501 1500
No. of Different Words: 218 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.757 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.885 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.638 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 160 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 95 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.286 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.15 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.429 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.264 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.45 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.067 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 240, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...to be built along the edge of wetlands. The opposition to such a development sugges...
^^^
Line 1, column 442, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...e sanctuary where these animals reside. The example of Eastern Carpenteria has been...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, if, look, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, in contrast, as well as, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 37.0 19.6327345309 188% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 13.6137724551 184% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2560.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 512.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71474819976 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.43359375 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 802.8 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.1195895448 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.4285714286 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2857142857 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.85714285714 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.67664670659 278% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.183213633026 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0576468564598 0.0743258471296 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.077438583675 0.0701772020484 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103644273323 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0709052610449 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.58 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.