The author concludes here that the purported decline in deer population in Canada’s artic region is the result of the deer being unable to follow migration across frozen sea due to recent global warming trends. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To justify the conclusion, the author notes that declining in deer population in coincides with the recent global warming trends that have caused sea ice to melt. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author’s conclusion. Hence, the argument can be considered unsubstantiated.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that global warming is the only cause of decrease in deer population in arctic region. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. Arctic region might have had different effect which is not examined. Moreover, deer are very adaptive in nature. That means, if ice melting be the case, it cannot alone cause the decrease in population. Hence, the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly states the condition of the arctic region and adaptability of deer at the time of the survey.
The argument also cites that the reports were taken from local hunters. No professional surveyors were assigned to get the accurate reports of deer population decrease. The local hunters might not have dug deeper into the matter and thus reported only what they saw without much deeper knowledge of the same. This again is a weak and unsupported claim.
Finally, there are lot more other reasons for population decrease which is not being taken into consideration here. Food can be extinct and as result the deer population decreased. Deer hunting can also be a major reason for population decrease which the argument has neglected. Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by way of a reliable survey of possible reasons for population decrease of deer in arctic region. Finally, to better evaluate the argument it would be necessary to know more information about how the overall environment of the arctic region must have changed to cause the effect mentioned.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 406 350
No. of Characters: 2037 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.489 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.017 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.566 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.455 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.59 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.545 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.46 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.047 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, hence, however, if, moreover, so, thus, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2106.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 406.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.18719211823 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72695584663 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504926108374 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 665.1 705.55239521 94% => 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: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.9801452196 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.7272727273 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4545454545 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.04545454545 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.123537179109 0.218282227539 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0394424710154 0.0743258471296 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0266847252095 0.0701772020484 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0725681172618 0.128457276422 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0202785386564 0.0628817314937 32% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => 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: 12.82 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => 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.