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 loss of Earth's biodiversity can have a serious impact and create mayhem that lasts generations. Hence, it is our responsibility to preserve it and in turn help maintain the interdependence between various biotic organisms. In support of this, the argument suggests that the tufted groundhog of West Lansburg has seen a declining population over the years and is declared as a wildlife sanctuary, prohibiting development along the coastal wetlands. However, local development interests are seeking a repeal of its sanctuary status to build an access road across the edge of the wetlands. A similar situation at the neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria saw a further plummeting sea otter population after the repeal of sanctuary status. To evaluate this argument we must consider a few factors before deciding and narrowing on the future course of action.
Firstly, we need to know what were the exact changes made in Eastern Carpenteria. This suggests that we should check for possible sources other than local development by which the sea otter population might have started to dwindle. This study will help us to possibly highlight if there is some other cause of concern behind the decreasing numbers.
Next, we should check for alternatives such that the sanctuary status is preserved as well as an access road is developed. This will ensure that we find a sweet spot between the two conflicting interests. It will maintain the sanctuary status and also favour the local development interest. Such an arrangement would ensure that compromise needs to be made nowhere and local progress is also not affected by any means.
However, this does not eliminate the need to monitor the species and check for possible clues in their habitat which is affecting their longevity. We can check for climatic and other factors which can have a direct, serious and lasting impact on their existence. Simply attributing local development work as a cause without evaluating the existing conditions would seem a jejune approach towards conservation of biodiversity.
Moreover, we can also check if the species can be shifted to a safer and more appropriate environment. This displacement would ensure that their needs of a quality habitat are supplemented and the local development work is also not affected.
In addition to this we can check if there are methods present for local development which avoid any damage to the tufted groundhog. Eco-friendly measures could make it possible to go ahead with work without worrying about the implications.
Therefore, we have listed the specific evidence needed and the reasons behind them to evaluate the argument provided. Summarizing the above statements we have the following:
1. What were the exact changes made in Eastern Carpenteria?
2. Are there alternatives such that the sanctuary status is preserved and an access road can also be developed?
3. What are the possible factors present in the tufted groundhog's habitat which is affecting their longevity?
4. Is there an option to shift the species to a safer and more appropriate environment?
5. Are there any methods present for local development which avoid any damage to the tufted groundhog?
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
1. the introduction is too long.
2. don't need a summary in the conclusion.
---------------------
Just need 3 -4 arguments, like:
1. about time. one is at 1978, one is at 2004.
2. about location: one is on West Lansburg, one is Eastern Carpenteria.
3. about species. one is tufted groundhog, one is sea otter.
---------------------
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: 31 15
No. of Words: 512 350
No. of Characters: 2625 1500
No. of Different Words: 233 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.757 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.127 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.834 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 194 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 154 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 107 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 71 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.516 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.666 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.419 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.248 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.456 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 7 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 16, column 55, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'groundhogs'' or 'groundhog's'?
Suggestion: groundhogs'; groundhog's
... possible factors present in the tufted groundhogs habitat which is affecting their longev...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, well, in addition, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2699.0 2260.96107784 119% => OK
No of words: 512.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.271484375 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90724673663 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.458984375 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 834.3 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.474802677 57.8364921388 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 99.962962963 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.962962963 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.92592592593 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 12.0 5.15768463074 233% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0923975924036 0.218282227539 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0278934810866 0.0743258471296 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0562979153921 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0430157548771 0.128457276422 33% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0457839111355 0.0628817314937 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 98.500998004 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.