"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 discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In the letter to the environmental magazine’s editor the author states that the reduction of amphibian species in Xanadu National Park has a different cause which is introduction of trout. The author came to this conclusion based on the assumption that trout eats amphibian’s eggs. However, to evaluate this statement, few questions must be answered.
First of all, does the amphibians present in the Xanada national park were served with purified water and air. Amphibian’s number has steadily decreased not only in Xanada Park throughout the world because of pollution of air and water. It is possible that because of impurity water and air might affect the health of the species and leads to decline in the number. If the above scenario is merit, then the argument is weakened.
Secondly, the number of species from 1975 to 2002 are same throughout the given time period? It might happen that the species have experienced a steady decrease in the number throughout the years and recorded only 4 species by 2002. If the above assumption is true then the argument does not hold water.
Thirdly, after the introduction of trout , is there any evidence that trout ate each and every egg of amphibians. In other words, did trout eat the eggs of amphibians? There is a chance of possibility that trout survived by eating other than these eggs. Since, there is a steady decline in the species globally, cause of reduction in species cannot be put on trout alone.
In conclusion, the argument, state as now , is considerably flawed. If the author is able to answer above questions and offer more evidence, then it will be possible to evaluate the conclusion made.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 280 350
No. of Characters: 1343 1500
No. of Different Words: 141 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.091 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.796 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.589 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 90 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 65 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 51 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.809 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.597 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.09 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 234, 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.
...rs and recorded only 4 species by 2002. If the above assumption is true then the a...
^^
Line 13, column 41, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...Thirdly, after the introduction of trout , is there any evidence that trout ate ea...
^^
Line 17, column 42, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...n conclusion, the argument, state as now , is considerably flawed. If the author i...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, second, secondly, then, third, thirdly, in conclusion, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1412.0 2260.96107784 62% => OK
No of words: 280.0 441.139720559 63% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.04285714286 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09062348924 4.56307096286 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83361514323 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 204.123752495 72% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.521428571429 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 432.9 705.55239521 61% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.4381062558 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.25 119.503703932 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.4375 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.296626495943 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0868850920317 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.081933542085 0.0701772020484 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143910609178 0.128457276422 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0874686618762 0.0628817314937 139% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.3799401198 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 48.3550499002 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.75 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 98.500998004 59% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.