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 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 strengthen or weaken the argument.
In a letter to the editor of West Lansburg News, it's posited that local development interests are lobbying for the West Lansburg council to allow an access road to be built along the edge of wetlands. But assertion believes that the council should not allow the road to be built to ensure a healthy environment and in preserving the region's biodiversity. Before this conclusion is finalized, few questions must be answered.
Firstly, it is believed that tufted groundhogs were once numbered in the millions. However, this data is ambiguous, as no one knows the exact population of tufted groundhogs at present. This conclusion is drawn by referring to ancient records which is anachronistic. Exact population of these groundhogs must be determined in order to take a solid decision regarding development of the road. More focus is needed on this issue as it will be a key factor in the decision making process, as preserving this biodiversity is of utmost importance.
Secondly, the assertion suggests that the Eastern Carpenteria sea otter population has seen a decline since the repeal of its sanctuary status in 1978. While this is true, we must not ignore the fact that this sanctuary is in the neighboring region which has different climate and entirely different habitats in the sanctuary. Downfall in the population is a serious concern, but this does not guarantee that West Lansburg will face similar issues. One cannot simply draw conclusions on his own by looking at other scenarios vicariously.
Thirdly, if council enforces strict rules of development which aid to preserving the biodiversity and ensures healthy environment, and the developers are happy to stay true and abide to them, there will be no harm. Once the devlopers are legally bound to preserve the sanctuary while developing, they can be sued any time they violate their boundaries. There is no assurance that developing roads will cause only harm and nothing else. The assertion is based on remote assumption and insuffecient data.
Lastly, since local developers are showing interest in developing an access road along the edge of the wetlands, the council should consider it as an opportunity to gather funds for the maintenance of the sanctuary. If the access roads are built and ready, then the council can apply tickets to visit the sanctuary and thus can make a decent amount of money from it. Which will ultimately contribute to the betterment of habitats. Also, nature lovers will be able to come and experience this pristine form of nature.
To summarize, there is no harm to give access to develop roads along the edge of wetlands as long as the developers are legally bound to obey the rules enforced by the council. There is no strong evidence that this development will hamper the biodiversity and result into unhealthy environment, and councul should consider allowing local developers to build an access roads along the edge.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 481 350
No. of Characters: 2395 1500
No. of Different Words: 234 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.683 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.979 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.743 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 168 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 99 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 69 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.864 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.89 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.545 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.264 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.532 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.059 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 334, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
...althy environment and in preserving the regions biodiversity. Before this conclusion is...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 368, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Which” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... make a decent amount of money from it. Which will ultimately contribute to the bette...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, look, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2454.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 481.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10187110187 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68313059816 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82373794202 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.490644490644 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 771.3 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.4315467648 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.545454545 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8636363636 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.45454545455 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.138494730498 0.218282227539 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0447635176802 0.0743258471296 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0740658774347 0.0701772020484 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0712816140177 0.128457276422 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0586731384063 0.0628817314937 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 12.3 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 98.500998004 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.