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 to the editor for the West Lansburg News, the author has claimed that West Lansburg council should prohibit to allow the builiding of the road in order to protect the population of Sea Otter. Perhaps, author's argument is valid but the assumption on which he drew conclusion are likely to be flawed. There is a need to assess more evidences which are stated below, to draw more effective conclusion.
First of all, author has assumed the similar status of tufted groundhog and Sea otter- assuming both as endangered species. Perhaps after 1978, the population has been increased to such a level, there are enough numbers of sea otter in Eastern Carpenteria. There is lack of evidences about the status of Sea otter at the present, assume that they are in threat. So, research on their status should be done at first of all instead to implementing the conclusion promptly; because if there are enough numbers of Sea otter in the place, then opting to build the road can be the better option.
Secondly, author has assumed the similar type of habitats of both animals. He implied that both animals live along the wetlands. Perhaps, Sea otter donot live along the edges of wetlands. It might live away from the edges on the cental part of the wetlands due to which, the impact of building roads on the edges might not do a minimal harm to the Sea Otter. So evidences about their way of living is also very necessary to evaluation the argument.
Thirdly, his statement implied that, area and size of both wetlands are roughly similar. It is possible that Coastal Wetland be smaller and compacted and Eastern Carpenteria be bigger and large so that, the impact of building roads on Coastal Wetland is a threat to the animal, however,not in Eastern Carpenteria. Therefore, it is very crucial to find the evidences regarding the area and size of both wetlands before carrying out the conclusion. Otherwise, relying on the just these unjustified assumptions might seriously flawed the conclusion.
In these ways, it is concluded that there are holes and limitations in author's assumptions by which he has claimed his conclusion. These above evidences and other all possible evidences should be first of all, evaluated, and analyzed before coming to the conclusion.
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: 18 15
No. of Words: 387 350
No. of Characters: 1850 1500
No. of Different Words: 176 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.435 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.78 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.493 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 133 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 99 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.703 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.328 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.569 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.125 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 286, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , not
...tland is a threat to the animal, however,not in Eastern Carpenteria. Therefore, it i...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1905.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 386.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.93523316062 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43248042346 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60422878616 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.471502590674 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 591.3 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.4492438366 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.833333333 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4444444444 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.05555555556 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.121337616574 0.218282227539 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0351590199097 0.0743258471296 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0555251557243 0.0701772020484 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.064046189712 0.128457276422 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0505818320513 0.0628817314937 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.