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 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 argument put forward by the author stating that the decline in deer population can be attributed to the unfreezing of water between the islands of Canadian Arctic region due to global warming is flawed. Not considering other reasons for the decline, relying on ambiguous reports and failing to consider that positive effects of global warming that might be beneficial for the deer population makes the author’s argument fallacious.
In the contention presented by the author, it is noted that the frozen water on which the deer travel to go to other islands remains in such state for only some part of the year. Hence, it might not be the only factor if it were to be believed that the deer population is declining, to cause their numbers to dwindle. There are other factors as well to account for this decline like competition for resources, extremely harsh climatic conditions, human interference, and an increase in the number of predators. If the author would have mentioned in his or her argument that the waters stayed frozen throughout the year then its importance as a contributing factor to the decline in deer population would have been enhanced.
Also, the “reports” mentioned by the author seems a little vague. Since we are told that Canada’s Arctic region is an archipelago, it is not specifically mentioned as to in which island the decline was noted. The local hunters would have noticed a decline in one or maybe a few islands but that does not justifiably conclude that the population of deer has declined in entire Canada’s Arctic region. Had the author been more specific in his argument in saying the hunters from all islands reported the decline in deer population, then that would have earned the author some credence.
Even if it is accepted that due to global warming the deer are not able to cross the islands due to their inability to cross the frozen water connecting the islands, that does not necessarily mean that their population would decline. If they become confined to certain islands then that would explain their underreporting by the hunters who might be hunting in other areas. Also, global warming might actually be beneficial for the deer since the very reason they traveled to various islands was to find unfrozen food. Global warming would now not only unfreeze the water between the islands but also the frozen vegetation. Vegetation would grow easily since harsh and cold weather conditions might not prevail. Hence this severely undermines the author’s argument since global warming might not decrease but rather increase their population. The author could have looked into the aforementioned possibilities before stating his or her contention.
The abovementioned fallacies need to be paid attention to by the author before reaching any conclusion.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK, and more, like:
Suppose global warming trends have caused the sea ice to melt, maybe it is still possible for deer moving over ice from island to island.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 462 350
No. of Characters: 2302 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.636 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.983 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.604 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 171 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.838 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.366 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.562 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.143 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 526, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had mentioned'?
Suggestion: had mentioned
... the number of predators. If the author would have mentioned in his or her argument that the waters ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 235, 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.
...an that their population would decline. If they become confined to certain islands...
^^^
Line 7, column 714, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...d weather conditions might not prevail. Hence this severely undermines the author&apo...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, hence, if, look, may, so, then, well, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2384.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 462.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16017316017 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63618218583 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83747659055 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.452380952381 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 739.8 705.55239521 105% => 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: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.5008590989 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.444444444 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6666666667 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.55555555556 5.70786347227 62% => 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 : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.222250053683 0.218282227539 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0813310594058 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0550080715307 0.0701772020484 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119627344232 0.128457276422 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0683638166766 0.0628817314937 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.