The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News:
"The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they were declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2004, development along the coastal wetlands has been prohibited. Now local development interests are lobbying for the West Lansburg council to allow an access road to be built along the edge of wetlands. Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria, which had a similar sanctuary, has seen its sea otter population decline since the repeal of its sanctuary status in 1978. In order to preserve the region's biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment, the West Lansburg council should not allow the road to be built."
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 letter to the editor for West Lansburg News urges that in order to preserve the region's biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment, the West Lansburg council should not allow the road to be built. But the conclusion derived is not very sound. The conclusion makes many assumptions and draw results on limited support.
First of all, the author makes a comparison between two different species of animals namely - groundhog and otters and offers that the population of otters declined when eastern Carpenteria lost it's status as sanctuary. So he assumes that the population of groundhogs will also deplete, if the road is built along the edge of coastal wetlands of Lansburg. But the basis of comparison is not on point. Otters and groundhogs , both are different species with different habitat and environmental needs. Factors affecting the decline of their population can be different. The author is neglecting this fact.
Also, The repeal of sanctuary status took place in 1978 and a long time has passed since then. The conditions which actually led to the decline of otter population almost 25 years has no connection ,whatsoever , with the effect of building of a road along the coastal wetlands in the modern time. People and governments today are more concerned about the wildlife and environment comparative to 20 years ago.
Also, building of roads and ceasing to be a sanctuary are totally two different cases. On one hand the roads help in easy transportation while a sanctuary helps in saving the wildlife from human interference. So the decline of otters may be because of the lack of care for wildlife due to repeal of the sanctuary status of Eastern Carpenteria. But the roads do not affect the wildlife and hence the population of otters in any direct way. So the concern about preservation of region's biodiversity and ensuring a healthy environment by not building roads is quite far fetched.
Furthermore there is no mention of the removal of sanctuary status of coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. So until this happens, there is no direct threat to the population of otters in that area due to the roads.
Hence I would conclude that the reasoning of the author is underdeveloped and lacking many strong evidences to support his claim that In order to preserve the region's biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment, the West Lansburg council should not allow the road to be built. Author needs scientific proof regarding if the conditions to live for otters and groundhogs are similar. Also he needs to make sure in what way the roads are going to harm the wildlife present there. Unless author provides this type of solid evidence to support his claim, the claim is actually unwarranted and at-least won't convince me of his judgement.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 85, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
...ews urges that in order to preserve the regions biodiversity and ensure a healthy envir...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 131, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...y - groundhog and otters and offers that the population of otters declined when e...
^^
Line 3, column 327, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., if the road is built along the edge of coastal wetlands of Lansburg. But the ba...
^^^^
Line 3, column 427, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...n is not on point. Otters and groundhogs , both are different species with differe...
^^
Line 3, column 597, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n be different. The author is neglecting this fact. Also, The repeal of sanctu...
^^
Line 5, column 198, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...lation almost 25 years has no connection ,whatsoever , with the effect of building...
^^
Line 5, column 210, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...t 25 years has no connection ,whatsoever , with the effect of building of a road ...
^^
Line 5, column 240, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...whatsoever , with the effect of building of a road along the coastal wetlands in ...
^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
...building roads is quite far fetched. Furthermore there is no mention of the removal of s...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 119, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...wetlands of West Lansburg. So until this happens, there is no direct threat to th...
^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...tters in that area due to the roads. Hence I would conclude that the reasoning of ...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 160, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
...his claim that In order to preserve the regions biodiversity and ensure a healthy envir...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 385, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
... for otters and groundhogs are similar. Also he needs to make sure in what way the r...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.285714285714 0.25644967241 111% => OK
Verbs: 0.132796780684 0.15541462614 85% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0804828973843 0.0836205057962 96% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0503018108652 0.0520304965353 97% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0181086519115 0.0272364105082 66% => OK
Prepositions: 0.136820925553 0.125424944231 109% => OK
Participles: 0.0301810865191 0.0416121511921 73% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.78752651672 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0321931589537 0.026700313972 121% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.120724346076 0.113004496875 107% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0120724346076 0.0255425247493 47% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00603621730382 0.0127820249294 47% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2792.0 2731.13054187 102% => OK
No of words: 465.0 446.07635468 104% => OK
Chars per words: 6.00430107527 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64369019777 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.367741935484 0.378187486979 97% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.266666666667 0.287650121315 93% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.189247311828 0.208842608468 91% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.124731182796 0.135150697306 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78752651672 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 207.018472906 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.464516129032 0.469332199767 99% => OK
Word variations: 52.2109260662 52.1807786196 100% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.2173913043 23.2022227129 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.6351701268 57.7814097925 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.391304348 141.986410481 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2173913043 23.2022227129 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.565217391304 0.724660767414 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 13.0 3.58251231527 363% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 46.884057971 51.9672348444 90% => OK
Elegance: 2.25 1.8405768891 122% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.530455347037 0.441005458295 120% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.115428012928 0.135418324435 85% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0612890281756 0.0829849096947 74% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.573265216805 0.58762219726 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.150400018017 0.147661913831 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.22448561093 0.193483328276 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.131185370735 0.0970749176394 135% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.43410364105 0.42659136922 102% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0770780771598 0.0774707102158 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.389716097818 0.312017818177 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.058642470014 0.0698173142475 84% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.82512315271 207% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 11.0 14.657635468 75% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.