In this letter to the editor, the author has concluded that the proposal to built a road along the edge of wetlands should be rejected in order to preserve the region's biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment. The author has provided evidence that a similar project happened in Eastern Carpenteria that resulted in a decline in its otter population. Quite convincing though such statement appears at first glance, closer scrutiny reveals that the conclusion lacks crucial support. Before rejecting the proposal, the following assumptions need to be understood.
Firstly, is the wetlands of Eastern Carpenteria comparable to the wetlands of West Lansburg? What if, West Lansburg and Eastern Carpenteria have completely different conditions? For instance, it is possible that Eastern Carpenteria is a very sensitive region, and due to which when its sanctuary status repealed in 1978, the biodiversity of the region was not able to resist the local development. It is also possible that local people of West Landburg understands the importance of biodiversity and will participate avidly to preserve that. Meanwhile, maybe the people of Eastern Carpenteria are uneducated and just care about money and their personal development. Therefore, comparing the two regions without any data or studies is unjustified and a threat to the validity of the argument thus weakening its inevitability.
Secondly, does building a road actually affecting the wildlife sanctuary? It is possible that constructing this new road is actually not affecting the population of tufted groundhogs and other biodiversity. For instance, it is possible that the road will pass through regions having no significant importance to tufted groundhogs. In addition to this, it is also possible that this road will actually help the locals and forest officials to keep a check on illegal huntings inside the sanctuary. If this is true, clearly the road has significant importance and the conclusion drawn is untenable.
Lastly, what is a tradeoff between the biodiversity and interests of the locals? Does this project have a significant economic value for locals as compare to the destruction that can happen as a result of this development? For instance, it is possible that constructing this road can help locals a lot in terms of their livelihood, and constructing the road will not harm much the existing biodiversity. Then, this tradeoff is viable and the argument does not hold water.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide insights into the above-mentioned ideas perhaps in a form of data and research study then it might be possible to evaluate the viability of accepting the recommendation of rejecting the development proposal.
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 161, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
...ld be rejected in order to preserve the regions biodiversity and ensure a healthy envir...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, firstly, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, while, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2386.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 445.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36179775281 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59293186426 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10791797627 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489887640449 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 738.0 705.55239521 105% => 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: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.3334506215 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.619047619 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1904761905 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 5.70786347227 128% => 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 : 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: 0.102328765048 0.218282227539 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0341325148943 0.0743258471296 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0517664195781 0.0701772020484 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0476717952042 0.128457276422 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0359421000599 0.0628817314937 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 98.500998004 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 161, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
...ld be rejected in order to preserve the regions biodiversity and ensure a healthy envir...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, firstly, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, while, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2386.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 445.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36179775281 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59293186426 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10791797627 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489887640449 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 738.0 705.55239521 105% => 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: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.3334506215 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.619047619 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1904761905 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 5.70786347227 128% => 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 : 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: 0.102328765048 0.218282227539 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0341325148943 0.0743258471296 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0517664195781 0.0701772020484 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0476717952042 0.128457276422 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0359421000599 0.0628817314937 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 98.500998004 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.