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."
According to the letter, the author claims suggests that in order to preserve the region's biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment, the road should not be built alond the edge of wetlands. The author uses the neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria as example to support her argument, and claims that its sea otter population declined once their sanctuary status was repealed. To efficiently evaluate the argument, we need to consider the following three pieces of evidence.
Firstly, the author assumes that if the road is built along the edge of the wetlands, then it will result in its sanctuary status being repealed. For instance, even if the road is built, but it is not damaging the region's diversity- and perhaps the wildlife body concerned with the handling the sanctuary status does not take it away. This may not harm the tufted groundhog living in the coastal wetlands. The author has to find direct correlation between building the road and its effect on the region's biodiversity and in maintaining a healthy environment. Hence, if the above scenario becomes true, then the argument does not hold water.
Furthermore, there has to be compelling evidence that the scenario in West Lansburg and in Eastern Carpenteria are roughly comparable. For instance, even if the sanctuaries are similar, the effect of the development along the coast on the sea otter and the tufted groundhog can vary vastly. What if the development of the road is no way affecting the life of the tufted groundhog? If this is true then we do not have a problem, because then we are not hampering with the region's biodiversity. Therefore, the author has come up with proper evidence about the nature of road that is being built and its effect on the lifestyle of the tufted groundhog. If the above scenario becomes true, then it significally weakens the author's argument.
Finally, the author has to produce specific evidence about the adverse effects that the development can have in maintaining a healthy environment. For example, if the author can produce evidence that after building the road, pollution might increase, resulting in decline of health of the tufted groundhogs, then this can strengthen his argument. He can also get evidence that the construction of the road will result in lesser space for the animals and hence, hampering with their lifestyle by not allowing them to roam freely and live in constant peril of being hurt by a vehicle. However, this should be done consulting researchers and drawing data from various other sources where such a similar situation has been encountered.
In conclusion, I think the argument is in a way flawed. The author just does not consider enough evidences before making the conclusion. To efficiently evaluate the argument, we need to consider the pieces of evidence mentioned above, which the author can collect by conducting proper research in the area or by consulting the government.
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 482 350
No. of Characters: 2397 1500
No. of Different Words: 210 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.686 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.973 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.685 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 181 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 138 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.952 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.381 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.334 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.525 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.118 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 83, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
... suggests that in order to preserve the regions biodiversity and ensure a healthy envir...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 215, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
...ad is built, but it is not damaging the regions diversity- and perhaps the wildlife bod...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 497, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
...building the road and its effect on the regions biodiversity and in maintaining a healt...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 472, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
...ause then we are not hampering with the regions biodiversity. Therefore, the author has...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 720, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... true, then it significally weakens the authors argument. Finally, the author has to...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, as to, for example, for instance, i think, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2456.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 482.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09543568465 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68556276237 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79378859803 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.452282157676 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 757.8 705.55239521 107% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.3126910298 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.952380952 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9523809524 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.19047619048 5.70786347227 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => 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: 0.111884068596 0.218282227539 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0404219045991 0.0743258471296 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0575300001359 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0624910527386 0.128457276422 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.052505725665 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.