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 the number of arctic deer is declining as an effect of global warming citing reference from the local hunters. While the argument seems quite plausible at first glance, a closer scrutiny sheds light on a plethora of further evidances yet to be proved to confirm the causation of the argument.
First of all, the data presented lacks a depth of detail that would help us to evaluate the significance of the study results. It is based on the survey report of the local hunters. Well, how many people were surveyed? What was the margin of error and how was the study conducted? If the study represented a large enough survey group that encompasses hunters from different localities across the Arctic region, then the survey result may be conveying something significant. If, alternatively, only hunters from a specific region were surveyed, then it would not bear any significant observation.
The author appears to believe global warming as the only cause for the decline of the population of Arctic deer. But, there can be other reasons working behind this declination. For example, the availability of their food, the number of predators, hunters, even an outbreak of diseases. As the global temparature is rising, may be, some new varieties of plants start to grow in those areas, resulting in an increase of the source of food for the beers. In such a case, the population of beer could actually increase- opposite of what the reporters seem to believe.
Last but not the least, the report points the inability to migrate into warmer areas as a primary reason for the death of the beers. For this reason to be hold true, the number of dead beers in the colder region needs to be provided as a proof. Also, the total number of beers that are being shot by hunters need to be provided to reveal the whole scenario. Before having these evidences, it is too reckless for the author to assert that they are dying primarily for not being able to migrate.
This litany of unsupported evidances seriously jeopardizes the certainty of the conclusion. While the author's hypothesis is clearly one possibility, more research is needed to eliminate other possibilities and to bolster the strength of the argument. If any of the suppositions contained in the argument proved false, the conclusion would be factually wrong.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: While the argument seems quite plausible at first glance, a closer scrutiny sheds light on a plethora of further evidances yet to be proved to confirm the causation of the argument.
Error: evidances Suggestion: evidences
Sentence: As the global temparature is rising, may be, some new varieties of plants start to grow in those areas, resulting in an increase of the source of food for the beers.
Error: may Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: temparature Suggestion: temperature
Sentence: This litany of unsupported evidances seriously jeopardizes the certainty of the conclusion.
Error: evidances Suggestion: evidences
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 395 350
No. of Characters: 1896 1500
No. of Different Words: 212 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.458 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.8 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.607 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 91 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.774 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.283 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.53 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.068 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 103, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... certainty of the conclusion. While the authors hypothesis is clearly one possibility, ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, if, may, so, then, well, while, for example, 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: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1958.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 395.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95696202532 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45809453852 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69905476995 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554430379747 0.468620217663 118% => OK
syllable_count: 610.2 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.0815107001 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.9 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.75 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.25 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.102270367977 0.218282227539 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0294911448234 0.0743258471296 40% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0399857574242 0.0701772020484 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0532471825725 0.128457276422 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0339615712275 0.0628817314937 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.