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.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The author of the article assumes that the reduction of amphibians population in the Xanadu National Park is for the sake of introducing of trout _amphibian eggs eater- apart from the air and water pollution which are the prime cause of this incident in the global. This assumption could not be accepted as it stands since it rests on the series of vague reasons all of which challenging the issue in some ways.
First of all, there is no evidence that the Xanadu National Park is a separate spot from the other locations in the world. The air and water pollution can scatter so quickly; there is no matter where this park is located, if the polluting source indicated in a particular place, its negative side-effects would deliver to this park too; provided it is isolated from the atmosphere and is a closed area. On the other hand, this area is not exceptional from this worldwide event, and the factor of the air and water contamination cannot be underestimated. The argument could hence be attested if it had explicitly listed the feature of this location.
Next, this surmise is shaky as there is a little clue about the number of the population regarding both amphibians and trout. In a case which the ratio of the trout to existence amphibians is less than one, the trout cannot be solely responsible for this reduction, while the amphibians have this opportunity to recover after the invasive eating habit of the trout. Even the percentage of these two animals is identical; the assumed claim is a fallacy too. As long as there is no statistic about the pace of the trout's eating habits and the velocity of amphibians in laying the eggs, the author could conclude that the trout leads to this decrement. For instance, if the amphibians with the same population of trout on 1975 laid eggs twofold more than the trout required diet, the amphibian had this chance to survive.
Finally, the argument declares an unverified hypothesis which is based on the unclarified living condition. The author assumes that the survival situation of 2002 is as same as it in 1975; however, it is impossible that there was no alteration during this long duration. For example, perhaps during 1975 the park contained massive amounts of the water body to support the amphibian's survival; these lacks and rivers had been disappeared during this long span of time, and the amphibian lost their favorable habitats. Or maybe there is a variation in the rate of female to male of amphibians in this duration. In the last 27 years the number of productive females had been decreased; as a result, there are few fertile factors to increase the population.
All in all, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is, therefore, unpersuasive. It could be considerably strengthened if the author apparently mentioned to the location and condition of the park, the ratio of the amphibian to trout; moreover, it presented the evidence that living condition during the long span of time is consistent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 168, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...troducing of trout _amphibian eggs eater apart from the air and water pollution w...
^^
Line 9, column 356, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ng the long span of time is consistent.
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['apparently', 'finally', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'while', 'apart from', 'for example', 'for instance', 'as a result', 'first of all', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.235915492958 0.25644967241 92% => OK
Verbs: 0.137323943662 0.15541462614 88% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0792253521127 0.0836205057962 95% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0422535211268 0.0520304965353 81% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0193661971831 0.0272364105082 71% => OK
Prepositions: 0.137323943662 0.125424944231 109% => OK
Participles: 0.0369718309859 0.0416121511921 89% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.75492279554 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0176056338028 0.026700313972 66% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.170774647887 0.113004496875 151% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0140845070423 0.0255425247493 55% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00880281690141 0.0127820249294 69% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3017.0 2731.13054187 110% => OK
No of words: 512.0 446.07635468 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.892578125 6.12365571057 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.57801047555 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.3203125 0.378187486979 85% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.244140625 0.287650121315 85% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.197265625 0.208842608468 94% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.142578125 0.135150697306 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75492279554 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 207.018472906 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46875 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 54.4221667962 52.1807786196 104% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 28.4444444444 23.2022227129 123% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.1915536154 57.7814097925 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 167.611111111 141.986410481 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.4444444444 23.2022227129 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.05555555556 0.724660767414 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 52.8585069444 51.9672348444 102% => OK
Elegance: 2.06194690265 1.8405768891 112% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.321311819219 0.441005458295 73% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.138165794165 0.135418324435 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0647959448717 0.0829849096947 78% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.678859778195 0.58762219726 116% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.136509643034 0.147661913831 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.178945172942 0.193483328276 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0740969137411 0.0970749176394 76% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.59315034522 0.42659136922 139% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0292906063078 0.0774707102158 38% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.267684434164 0.312017818177 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0508082962389 0.0698173142475 73% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
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: This is not the final score. 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.