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."
Given the evidence that Sea otter population in Neighboring Easter Carpenteria has dwindled after it was stripped off sanctuary status, it may be tempting to conclude that providing sanctuary status to costal lands would aid in preserving population of groundhog. However, it seems that there are several assumptions lurking behind this conclusion, which are mostly self-proclaimed rather than based on any concrete evidence, which can invite doubt on the plausibility of the conclusion itself.
Firstly, the argument asserts that there has been a steep decline of groundhog population in the costal area, but it doesn't clearly mention the cause of this decline. Though it assumes that development activities might have been a probable cause (as any development activities in costal land was prohibited), there are no studies(findings) that can buttress this argument. Several other factors such as rise in number of predators or increase in incidence of certain disease in groundhog might have been a possible cause of decline. Had these been cause it would be of no use to prohibit development activities in costal areas. Moreover, prohibiting the activities might invite negative consequence to the biodiversity status, as access to road might allow more number of researches in the area that can be useful in preserving animal lives there. Without these infrastructures, the area might not elicit sufficient numbers of scientists in the area, who could make ground-breaking researches to save animals like groundhog's population there.
In the same way, the argument also asserts that, because in Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria, sea otter population dwindled after it's sanctuary status was abrogated, groundhog population would have to bear the same fate, if it is allowed to build roads in the costal wetlands. However, nowhere in the argument does it mention any compelling study that can bolster this assertion drawn from the experience of neighboring city. Firstly, the animals mentioned in two places are completely different, which makes the case that groundhog may not bear the same fate very much possible. Similarly, carrying out development activities might bring completely different effects in the two cities. While development works may have spurred a sharp rise in pollution in Eastern Carpenteria, it might not be the case in West Lans burg. Rather, road and other development activities may enable the residents in coastland build a number of infrastructures that can aid in preserving biodiversity in the area.
Finally, though from bird's-eye view, the claim that permission to carry out development activities in West Lansburg would eventually lead to decline in number of tufted groundhog (that is already declining at a rapid pace) might seem plausible, deep-down we can find many assumption that are completely unwarranted. So, it would be better if one could find concrete evidence for these assumptions and only take the forward decisions based on these evidences.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 467 350
No. of Characters: 2478 1500
No. of Different Words: 220 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.649 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.306 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.947 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 177 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 144 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 109 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 84 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.133 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.404 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.367 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.564 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.107 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 118, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...g population in the costal area, but it doesnt clearly mention the cause of this decli...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 569, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
... Had these been cause it would be of no use to prohibit development activities in c...
^^^
Line 3, column 1011, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'groundhogs'' or 'groundhog's'?
Suggestion: groundhogs'; groundhog's
...reaking researches to save animals like groundhogs population there. In the same way, th...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 266, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun assumption seems to be countable; consider using: 'many assumptions'.
Suggestion: many assumptions
...t seem plausible, deep-down we can find many assumption that are completely unwarranted. So, it...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, similarly, so, while, such as, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.9520958084 193% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2530.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 465.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44086021505 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64369019777 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.010695852 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.490322580645 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 787.5 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 59.5346209676 57.8364921388 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.125 119.503703932 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.0625 23.324526521 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.875 5.70786347227 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0928858553582 0.218282227539 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0320454630957 0.0743258471296 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0341362667808 0.0701772020484 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0617742120048 0.128457276422 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0357352411199 0.0628817314937 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.7 14.3799401198 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.58 48.3550499002 69% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.86 12.5979740519 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.9071856287 160% => 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.