coastal wetland
In the letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News, it states that the West Lansburg council prohibits the construction of road in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg as it might effect tufted groundhog, thus disturbing it's milieu. However, while the conclusion drawn in the letter might hold water, it rests on several unfounded assumptions that if not substantiated, dramatically weakens the pervasiveness of the argument. Thus, the following three questions must be addressed.
Firstly, Do they have any scientific findings that the tufted groundhog still exists? It might have happened that tufted groundhogs may have become extinct. Perhaps, they may not contribute significantly to the "biodiversity". It may be possible that they could survive in a variety of ambience. If either of these scenarios proves true, then the assertion made in the letter is significantly hampered.
Secondly, since the road is being constructed on the 'edge' of wetlands, will it necessarily effect the tufted groundhogs in the 'coastal' wetlands? It is so evident that these could be very far or have good distance, between edge and coastal region that it would not probably hamper their sanctuary. Moreover, this stand has been initiated by the local development group, the group might have considered the possible damage the construction would cause, since it is not so considerable hence they may have step forward. Infact, Local groups are generally more concerned about environment other than the government or any organisation. If the above is true, then the argument does not hold water.
Finally, The results of construction is being compared with Eastern Carpenteria, which though had similiar sanctuary but the action taken against it were completely different. In Eastern Carpenteria, the Sanctuary has been rescind unlike West Lansburg Sanctuary where the argument is about building of road on the edge of wetlands. If the sanctuary has been repealed, it is manifest that the place will lose its biodiversity and wildlife. If this holds true, the conclusion drawn in the original statement is considerably weakened.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwanted assumptions. If the author is able to anser the three questions above and offer more evidence (perhaps in the form of a systematic research study), then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of proposed recommendation to built the road along the edge od coastal wetlands of West Lansburg Sanctuary.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 404 350
No. of Characters: 2085 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.483 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.161 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.847 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.263 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.006 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.895 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.292 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.521 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.065 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 186, Rule ID: AFFECT_EFFECT[6]
Message: Did you mean 'affect'?
Suggestion: affect
...l wetlands of West Lansburg as it might effect tufted groundhog, thus disturbing its m...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 224, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'rescinded'.
Suggestion: rescinded
...ern Carpenteria, the Sanctuary has been rescind unlike West Lansburg Sanctuary where th...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, then, thus, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2156.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 404.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33663366337 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48327461151 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08716459502 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509900990099 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 651.6 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.8519729334 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.473684211 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2631578947 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.63157894737 5.70786347227 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.141936431 0.218282227539 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0379129186134 0.0743258471296 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0792847622864 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0846289249211 0.128457276422 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0697503817231 0.0628817314937 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.