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."
The author in his letter to the editor of the West Lansburg News has made an assertion to fend off the proposal of building a new road along the coastal region in order to preserve the region`s biodiversity and ensure healthy environment. The contention of the author, however, is rife with many unwarranted assumptions and loopholes. In order to provide more credibility to the assertion he probably need to address several other necessary evidence which can silence the doubters of his contention.
The author of this letter has based his claim on the assumption that the population of tufted groundhog in this particular sanctuary would be equally and similarly affected as in the case of sea otter`s population in the neighboring sanctuary. However, the author has failed to mention the specific cause behind the decline in the population of sea otter in the neighboring sanctuary. He has mentioned that the sea otter`s population has been declined after the sanctuary status was repealed. Similarly, there is no any inkling in his whole assertion that the similar fate is imminent in the case of West Lansburg sanctuary. Only the proposed construction of road is mentioned by the author which cannot ensure that the tufted groundhog`s population will be declined.
Moreover, the author has based his assertion in the assumption that the construction of road will undoubtedly lead to the negative impact on the groundhog and and the region`s biodiversity. However, there are no such evidence to back those claim which certainly lead this claim to be unwarranted. What the author must have done is that, he should have collected necessary details or any research findings which would depict clearly that the construction of road will negatively impact the overall biodiversity of the sanctuary. Lack of such clear cut evidence will only prove to weaken the assertion of the author.
Similarly, the author has pledged for restricting the new road to be build in the sanctuary. What if the road to be build has passed all its precautionary measures and environmental impact assessment and hence, rendered as to pose no any serious threat to the environment and biodiversity. If that is the case then, the claim of the author will be in vain and serve no useful purpose in the eye of the council.
Coming to the conclusion, the author of the letter need to elaborate on several key aspects of his assertion - the impact of the new construction on the biodiversity, related evidence of negative impact of road construction on the groundhogs population and evidence to support the road construction negative impact on the biodiversity, in order to strengthen his claim and render his assertion factual, and not merely speculation.
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: 16 15
No. of Words: 448 350
No. of Characters: 2240 1500
No. of Different Words: 180 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.601 4.7
Average Word Length: 5 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.856 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 165 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 69 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.096 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.394 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.617 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.15 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 524, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...tatus was repealed. Similarly, there is no any inkling in his whole assertion that...
^^
Line 9, column 156, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: and
...to the negative impact on the groundhog and and the region's biodiversity. However...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 232, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...sessment and hence, rendered as to pose no any serious threat to the environment a...
^^
Line 17, column 232, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'groundhogs'' or 'groundhog's'?
Suggestion: groundhogs'; groundhog's
...tive impact of road construction on the groundhogs population and evidence to support the ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, however, if, moreover, similarly, then, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 34.0 16.3942115768 207% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2325.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 448.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18973214286 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60065326758 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06536641328 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.415178571429 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 726.3 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
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: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 84.9866717492 57.8364921388 147% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.3125 119.503703932 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0 23.324526521 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.25 5.70786347227 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0861725717326 0.218282227539 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.032272288733 0.0743258471296 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0447680822998 0.0701772020484 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0503084308342 0.128457276422 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0380571609734 0.0628817314937 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 14.3799401198 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.3550499002 89% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.