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.
For us to draw an anlogy between the neighboring Eastern Carpentaria and the current situation in West Lansburg requires us to build a good case for a similarity in their relative natural and human milieus. While the author addresses their similar sanctuary status, any other details about the conditions in which it was repealed or the elimination of other possible reasons for the synchronous decline in their sea otter are absent. In fact, it must also be known whether the correspondent release in conservation measures there was as well a result of a lobbyist intervention in the legislation or merely a technical decision based on available givens.
On the other hand, more weight must be given to the current situation of the very focus of the issue: the tufted groundhogs. Any decision to be taken must must be based on accurate data about both their current number and the trends in their population since the commencemnt of the sanctuary status. Such data wouldn't only allow for a critical appraisal of the relative risks and benefits of the to-be project, but would also help evaluate the very efficacy of the sanctuary in its current form, which, if proven, might be an alternative explanation for the decline in the neighboring region.
In addition to those, it must be ensured that the charge of lobbyism is not of a polemical nature that is likely to happen in a bipartisan atmosphere. In other words, it must be completely apolitical and non-ideological. Futhermore, as counterintuitive as it might sound, the very impact of the development of the access road must also not be taken as given. In case the entity responsible for the project has any guarantees for maintaing the habitats of groundhogs, this should also be taken into consideration.
To sum up, the author's argument solely builds upon an analogy with a past scenario in the neighoring region as if it has happened in a vaccum; namely, it disregards all the contingency factors in which it led to the feared consequence, and likewise disregards them in West Lansburg. Also, the prospective project was only labeled with a seemingly factional term, without providing any evidence to lend it the appropriate credibility. Finally, a discussion of the corresponding losses from not proceeding in the project, including opportunity costs and in relation to the general economic and financial status, is also lacking and would be important to adopt a rational stance.
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: 13 15
No. of Words: 405 350
No. of Characters: 2000 1500
No. of Different Words: 214 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.486 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.938 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.945 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 144 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.154 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.719 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.846 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.353 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.585 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 151, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: must
...ed groundhogs. Any decision to be taken must must be based on accurate data about both th...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 311, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...emnt of the sanctuary status. Such data wouldnt only allow for a critical appraisal of ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 16, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...n into consideration. To sum up, the authors argument solely builds upon an analogy ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, if, likewise, so, well, while, in addition, in fact, in other words, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2046.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 404.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06435643564 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48327461151 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00886267265 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532178217822 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 658.8 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 62.3262080751 57.8364921388 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 157.384615385 119.503703932 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.0769230769 23.324526521 133% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 5.70786347227 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0718722946738 0.218282227539 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0257171089421 0.0743258471296 35% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0312792687321 0.0701772020484 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0447238238611 0.128457276422 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0173319423959 0.0628817314937 28% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.9 14.3799401198 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.01 48.3550499002 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.66 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.02 8.32208582834 120% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 98.500998004 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.