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
In this argument the author concludes that the decline in the population of the artic deer is the outcome of the deer's being unable to follow their migration patterns across the frozen sea. To bolster the argument, the author is not accomplished to provide any robust evidence.
Firstly, it couldn't be concluded that the melting migration paths, is the sole reason behind the decay in population of the deers. There could be tons of other reasons which are still oblivious. Moreover, the warmer climate could be benificial for the deers. It will augment the growth of the plants on which they feed, the population would have increased as a matter of fact and there would be less need to migrate.
Secondly, the decline in population is may be due to some other unknown factors. There may have been a natural disaster like earthquake in which a large portion of the population vanished in a single blow. There is also a possibility, that population of the species, which eats arctic deer have increased in this period of time, and are eating more arctic deers, hence decreasing the population.
Finally, the evidence which author does provide is the statement of local hunters which is a very poor source of information. I don't think they would have considered any reliable parameters to make such claim, other than their intuition. However, they might be having any personal motivation behind such claim. It is not difficult to process, who will get the benifit if there is an increase in the population of the artic dear.
In conclusion, to convince me that the decline in population of the arctic dear is due to the melting of the migration paths the author needs some strong evidence. There is a need to prove a strong corelation between the population and the melting path scenario. Without the support of evidence the decline of population couldn't be justified with only the statement of local hunters.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 91, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...line in the population of the artic deer is the outcome of the deers being unable...
^^
Line 2, column 13, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...ovide any robust evidence. Firstly, it couldnt be concluded that the melting migration...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 314, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...eats arctic deer have increased in this period of time, and are eating more arctic deers, henc...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 128, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...is a very poor source of information. I dont think they would have considered any re...
^^^^
Line 5, column 322, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...t of evidence the decline of population couldnt be justified with only the statement of...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, in conclusion, as a matter of fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1587.0 2260.96107784 70% => OK
No of words: 325.0 441.139720559 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.88307692308 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61327335599 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 204.123752495 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.492307692308 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 496.8 705.55239521 70% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => 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: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.548180663 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.1875 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3125 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0625 5.70786347227 141% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0934595389819 0.218282227539 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0315910333183 0.0743258471296 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0317350128608 0.0701772020484 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0542069370593 0.128457276422 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0201352408816 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: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.93 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 98.500998004 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.