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 writer claims that the dwindling numbers of the deer population is due the inimical effects of global warming. While it may be true that loss of sea ice is a plausible reason contributing to the decline of their numbers, the writer fails to consider other factors and variables that may have led to this.
First and foremost, the claim that the mere coincidence of the fall in the Arctic deer is attributed to the increased effects global warming seems lacking. It suggests a relation that seems forcibly put together at best. The underline assumption that the lack of ice has changed or broken their migration patterns fails to take into account many other variables that may have affected them. For instance, the writer mentions that the Arctic deer relies on habitats that are highly sensitive. This leads us to question whether variables like the lack of food or changing temperatures may have altered the environmental conditions of their habitats, thereby rendering them unfit for them.
Additionally, the writer mentions disrupted migration patterns which have made migration difficult. However, there is little relevant evidence of such behavioral changes stated in the passage. The vague reports by the local hunters are not enough to substantiate such a claim. Moreover, migration patterns can change. So even if the "age-old" paths are rendered broken, new alternates are devised by such animals.
The writer cites the report of the local hunters. It is not clear, however, how representative this sample pool for the community. It can be entirely possible that the decline in deer population only occurred in certain parts of the islands and is not a ubiquitous claim. The need to verify this observation through other sources is vital. Also, questions such as how the hunters noticed a decrease in their game can also strengthen the argument. How long have their numbers been dropping? Does the pattern suggest seasonal variation? Thus, detailed observational studies can help paint a convincing argument.
Changing migration paths indeed is a valid reason that can affect the distribution and prevalence of a species. And while they can be the sole cause of such an effect, the possibility of other variables cannot be ruled out without a detailed assessment. Thus, further detailed study and surveys can help the writer make a convincing claim.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 384 350
No. of Characters: 1937 1500
No. of Different Words: 208 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.427 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.044 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.654 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 117 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.696 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.019 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.565 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.265 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.474 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.044 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, moreover, so, then, thus, while, for instance, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2004.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 384.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21875 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4267276788 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81766019675 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5390625 0.468620217663 115% => OK
syllable_count: 611.1 705.55239521 87% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.5142656771 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.1304347826 119.503703932 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.6956521739 23.324526521 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.91304347826 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.103932152246 0.218282227539 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0267177845568 0.0743258471296 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0350161046186 0.0701772020484 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0518830463995 0.128457276422 40% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.036342494025 0.0628817314937 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.7 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => 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.