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 concluded that deer population is declining because of not being able to move from ice to ice for food. He used the evidence of global warming that led to melting of ice coinciding with declining population of deer since melting ice restricted their movement for food. However, the argument does not make a cogent case since it rife with holes and fissures. Before it can be evaluated, following evidences must be collected and verified for accuracy.
First of all, an evidence is required to justify the facts stating the decline in population of deer is caused by lack of food in their existing habitats. Since, if not, argument may not be true. For instance, it may happen that enough food is available on their existing homes but due to some other reason, perhaps due to internecine, their count is decreasing. Further, an evidence is also required to validate the claim of decline in population caused by food only. Since, if there is no food to eat, it would probably lead to it, but, however, it may be specious. For example, it may happen that food is available at their existing homes and at other nearby homes that can be travelled to, but due to a disease which has wreak havoc on them caused their decline. If these examples were true, then the argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, an evidence is necessary to prove that global warming has melted their existing paths. Since, if not, argument cannot be accepted. For instance, it may happen that global warming has caused melting of ice in other regions such as Nordic or Antarctica but its effects not yet reached to Arctic. Further, proof is also required to establish the relationship between how cold and hot temperature is required for plants to sustain and for them to travel. Since, it may happen that global warming might have melted their paths to other islands but might not resulted into the separation of their island consist of deer and plants’; they can scavenge for food on their existing island, but they are declining in numbers because of large scale hunting. If these cases were true, then the argument does not hold the water.
Thirdly, evidence must be collected and prove that travelling or rather jumping from one island to another is the only method for searching for food. Since, it may happen that they might know swimming and are able to swim just like all other animals, therefore, able to find food. But, poaching and hunt causing their population to decline. Further, proof must be submitted to know the condition of location where these plants grow and sustain. Since, it may happen that there is no effect on these plant location and they can reach to these locations by swimming or an NGO transporting them to these locations, but due to illness they are not able to eat, therefore dying in large numbers. Unless the evidence are fully reliable and comprehensive, it is not possible to fully support the argument.
The argument as it stands now, is clearly flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide above evidence and offer more inputs, perhaps in the form of study covering their different sources of food, their different methods to reach to their food locations and global warming melting their existing food locations, then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the argument.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 25 15
No. of Words: 577 350
No. of Characters: 2720 1500
No. of Different Words: 227 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.901 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.714 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.415 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 187 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 146 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.08 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.345 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.76 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.295 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.472 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.063 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 726, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'wreaked'.
Suggestion: wreaked
...lled to, but due to a disease which has wreak havoc on them caused their decline. If ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, for example, for instance, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 11.1786427146 215% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 57.0 28.8173652695 198% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 76.0 55.5748502994 137% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2809.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 577.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 4.86828422877 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90110439584 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52223605387 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 204.123752495 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.415944540728 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 879.3 705.55239521 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.3187324621 57.8364921388 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.36 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.08 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.56 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228546251943 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0613274710678 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0666081806073 0.0701772020484 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139760809507 0.128457276422 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0627904802561 0.0628817314937 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.84 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.