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.
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.
In the argument provided, the author alleges that there is a significant reduction in the Madagascan shrimp population due to the incursions of deep-sea fishermen. Even though the breeding season is fast approaching there will not be an increase in the levels of shrimp according to the author. Due to the above stated claims the author states that Madagascan shrimp will quickly become an endangered species. Though the argument seems ligitimate, there are many flaws and unstated assumptions upon which the author rests his statements.
Firstly, the author alleges that there has been a recent incursions by deep-sea fishermen which has lead to a reduction in shrimp population. However, supporting evidence for that statement was not provided. The reduction might have happened due to some ecological changes or because of oil spill from a leaked ship which is travelling around that area. There is no soild correlation between the incursion of fishermen and the reduction of species. Had the author provided the connection between the action and the cause, it would have been a valid point.
There is another point in the argument that as the breeding season is approaching the number of shrimp should increase. However, one cannot just state a claim based on single reason. There might be higher number of shrimps which are dying due to ecological imbalance and the number of shrimp breeding are far less compared to the ones which are moribund. There is no statement which substantiates or rejects this point in the arugment.
In addition to that, the author claims that the species will quickly be considered as endangered species because of the practices of deep-sea fishermen. There will be a certain threshold limit under which a species is considered as engendered. Even though the number of Madagascan shrimp might reduce at one area, there might be burgeoning of species at another. In addition to that, the number of speices which are currently present as well as the rate in which there is a waning of the species is also not provided which would bolster the author's claim.
The population should not return to the levels before the fishing boats arrived according to the author. But, the time in which the fishing boats usually arrive was not provided. Is it during the season when the breeding is fast or other season? Any proof for such claim has not been made by the author.
In conclusion, the author must have provided the interconnection between the reduction of species and the activities of deep-sea fishermen, proof for the claim that there would be an increase in the number of shrimp due to the breeding season, the number and the rate of decrease of the population and the season in which the fishing boats usually arrive in order to make his argument a cogent one.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 165, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[2]
Message: “Even though” 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.
...o the incursions of deep-sea fishermen. Even though the breeding season is fast approaching...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, so, well, in addition, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2340.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 469.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98933901919 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65364457471 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6266095187 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.388059701493 0.468620217663 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 710.1 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.9271905876 57.8364921388 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.363636364 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3181818182 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.292100955694 0.218282227539 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0960009697108 0.0743258471296 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0963973937123 0.0701772020484 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167958542933 0.128457276422 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0500192106042 0.0628817314937 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.51 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.