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 points out that declining population in deer is the result of being unable to follow age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. To buttresses his/her argument, the author cites the following evidence: first, Arctic deer need to limit their habitats to both warm and cold areas by migration; second, the reports local hunters and recent global warming trends show that the deer populations are decreasing. Tough the issue pointed have its merit, because of lack of relevant evidence and unaddressed assumptions, the author's argument is unsubstantiated incomplete.
To begin with, the creditability of the reports by local hunters is questionable. It is plausible the hunters count the number of deer in the region where they stay inactive or they scare away many deer with their guns. The sample size, in addition, matters a lot. If the reports are based on lots of hunters, then they might give some idea of the current deer population. If, on the other hand, they are relied on only a few hunters, then the reliability is doubtful. The population of deer calculated this way is unwarranted. Without the evidence with respect to the credibility of hunter's report, we are unable to fully evaluate the causal effect.
In addition, the author fails to provide the evidence of specialized climate change in Arctic. Recent global warming trend does not necessarily indicate that in Arctic. We are also not given the exact number of change in temperature. Even though the temperature of Arctic does increase, it might still be below the melting point of ice. Is the temperature impact strong enough to deter migration of deer? Food in warm area might be enough to support deer, thereby no migration to cold area is necessary. Deer probably adapt themselves to the new weather condition because of strong sustaining skill. To fully evaluate the memo, specific number of temperature change and adaptability to environment should be considered.
Last but not least, the author mistakenly ascribes the shrinking deer population in Arctic to their inability to follow their traditional migration patterns crossing the frozen sea. He/she fails to consider many other factors leading to its dwindling. Say, for example, that deer cannot obtain enough food, for which plants that used to feed on are extinct. Deer suffered from hunger owing to lack of enough food for survival. Alternative explanations such as deforestation and overhunting cause the similar impact. Inconclusive explanations for the declining trend in deer makes the author's argument problematic.
To sum up, as it stands, the author's conclusion is based on several invalid assumptions which undermines its reliability. To further strengthen his/her argument, the author is suggested to include the evidences as follows: first, the evidence of dwindling deer must be gathered by methodical and scientific investigation carried out by professional experts; second, global warming also applies in Arctic; finally, the impact of migration patter is the only impact on variation in population of deer, after excluding all other possibilities.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 500 350
No. of Characters: 2572 1500
No. of Different Words: 249 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.729 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.144 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.789 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 198 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 140 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.231 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.45 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.538 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.274 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.462 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 544, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...idence and unaddressed assumptions, the authors argument is unsubstantiated incomplete....
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 597, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ent is unsubstantiated incomplete. To begin with, the creditability of the ...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 585, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...r the declining trend in deer makes the authors argument problematic. To sum u...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 30, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
.... To sum up, as it stands, the authors conclusion is based on several invalid ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, second, so, still, then, for example, in addition, such as, to begin with, to sum up, with respect to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 55.5748502994 137% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2660.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 491.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41751527495 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70728369723 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15203631608 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 204.123752495 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519348268839 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 817.2 705.55239521 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 84.8750613647 57.8364921388 147% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.833333333 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4583333333 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.29166666667 5.70786347227 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.217910420278 0.218282227539 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0617157013734 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0582521196549 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119213820239 0.128457276422 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.04186527961 0.0628817314937 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.07 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 138.0 98.500998004 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.