Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic regions. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of the year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the purported decline in deer populations is the result of the deer's being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea.
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.
The author concludes that deer population is declining in Canada´s artic regions. To sustain the conclusion the authors provides only one source of information— local hunters— and quotes the trends of global warming as a complementary cause of the steady reduction of deer population. Nonetheless, these arguments are unproven assumption and consequently does not provide sufficient and sustainable evidence that support the conclusion.
Firstly, the information from the reports of the local hunters do not constitute a reliable piece of evidence. While it could be true that local hunters have the leverage of knowing the Canada´s artic regions, this does not imply that their reports are accurate since the author never established the mastery of local hunter about the habitat of deer. These reports could be consider as subjective because they rely on the information from just a group of local hunters. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that subjective experiences of local hunters reflect the composition of actual deer population. Say, for instance, that warmer regions different of those habited by the aforementioned local hunters do not experience a decline in deer population, or even, there is an increment due to the flourishing of plants regularly eaten by the deers. These contrasting standpoints would definitely not support the claim conclusion. In order to adequately sustain the conclusion the author should have provided more rigorous surveys from different groups not only of local hunter but also scientific experts on the subject such as biologists, ecologists or geologists, to name but a few.
Furthermore, the author cites the global warming as a possible cause of the declining of deer population. This argument does not, straightforward, lead to the author´s conclusion. Indeed, it is widely known that global warming heats the atmosphere and causes, among other, the melting of sea ice. However, the only relationship that the author provides between conclusion and the global warming is that deers might not be able to cross the frozen sea— as they have done it since old times. It is worthy to mention that when species find untoward situations they can reassess their ancient customs in order to preserve their survivorship. In the light of this, the deers might have migrated to other warm regions that does not require crossing by the frozen sea.
In addition, the author does not look further for other reasons causing the declining in deer population. Canada's arctic regions— as a rich oil area— have a developed network of oil industry that threatens, in many cases, the habitant of several species. This is a possible unmentioned reason of the problem. Other plausible explanation could be the upsurge of predators such as bears and wolves.
In conclusion, the author relies on vague elements to support the conclusion. Such elements are unproven facts that the author considers as a plausible assumptions. On the one hand, the author mistakenly associates the effects of global warming with the declining of deer population and also avoids looking into different explanations of the problem. On the other hand, the lack of representativeness and accuracy of the reports of the local hunters is insufficient to adequately derive the conclusion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 153, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'assumption'?
Suggestion: assumption
...hat the author considers as a plausible assumptions. On the one hand, the author mistakenly...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... to adequately derive the conclusion.
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'consequently', 'first', 'firstly', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'nonetheless', 'so', 'while', 'for instance', 'in addition', 'in conclusion', 'such as', 'in many cases', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.265866209262 0.25644967241 104% => OK
Verbs: 0.123499142367 0.15541462614 79% => OK
Adjectives: 0.111492281304 0.0836205057962 133% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0566037735849 0.0520304965353 109% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0171526586621 0.0272364105082 63% => OK
Prepositions: 0.132075471698 0.125424944231 105% => OK
Participles: 0.0257289879931 0.0416121511921 62% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.02088728261 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0205831903945 0.026700313972 77% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.128644939966 0.113004496875 114% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0137221269297 0.0255425247493 54% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00686106346484 0.0127820249294 54% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3326.0 2731.13054187 122% => OK
No of words: 523.0 446.07635468 117% => OK
Chars per words: 6.35946462715 6.12365571057 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78217453174 4.57801047555 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.401529636711 0.378187486979 106% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.325047801147 0.287650121315 113% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.221797323136 0.208842608468 106% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.160611854685 0.135150697306 119% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02088728261 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 207.018472906 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472275334608 0.469332199767 101% => OK
Word variations: 55.3004561661 52.1807786196 106% => OK
How many sentences: 24.0 20.039408867 120% => OK
Sentence length: 21.7916666667 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.5262967319 57.7814097925 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.583333333 141.986410481 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7916666667 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.75 0.724660767414 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 54.2964467814 51.9672348444 104% => OK
Elegance: 2.14782608696 1.8405768891 117% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.386209820795 0.441005458295 88% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.122370680832 0.135418324435 90% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0835694694724 0.0829849096947 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.573531062794 0.58762219726 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.147626113813 0.147661913831 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.170879636836 0.193483328276 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0618649563981 0.0970749176394 64% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.52311276149 0.42659136922 123% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0520354048788 0.0774707102158 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.285819046442 0.312017818177 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0412694429597 0.0698173142475 59% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.33743842365 144% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 7.0 2.82389162562 248% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 14.657635468 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.