The following editorial appeared in the Broomall County Times-Picayune:
"The Gordon Act, which established a wildlife refuge in the Big Dark Swamp, is currently up for reauthorization. The act prohibits the building of roads or cutting of old growth trees in the swamp, though it permits hunting. Many blamed logging activities for the decline of the bird population, especially that of the dappled grackle. The grackle population has continued to decline since the passage of the law, demonstrating that the Gordon Act has not been sufficient to protect the species. Another nearby refuge, the Wayne County Marsh Habitat, bans all mining, logging, and hunting. Wayne County officials have not reported a decline in the grackle population there. This proves that hunting, not logging, was responsible for the population drop in Broomall County. Thus, Broomall County should not reauthorize the Gordon Act unless it is amended to include the same provisions as those in Wayne County."
In the editorial of Broomall County Times, it is stated that Broomall County should not reauthorize the Gordon Act unless it is amended to include the same provisions for hunting, logging and mining as those in Wayne County. The opponents to the Gordon Act re authorization have come to this conclusion based on the comparison between banning laws in Wayne Country and Broomall County as well as the effects of these laws on the dappled grackle. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, the following three assumptions made by the opponents needs to warranted and it's implications to the argument has to be addressed.
First of all, are Big Dark Swamp in Broomall County and Marsh Habitat in Wayne County roughly comparable ? In other words can habitat circumstances and effects of banning all mining, logging and hunting in Wayne County be used to make generalizations and predictions about the habitat in Broomall County Swamp ? It is possible that the structure of flora and fauna and the ecosystem of Wayne County and Broomall County are not similar at all. For instance, there might be more number of dappled grackle predators in Broomall County compared to the number of predators in Wayne County. Further there is a possibility that dappled grackle in Broomall County is heavily dependent on trees for their survival as opposed to the dappled grackle in Wayne County. If either of these above scenarios has merit, then conclusion drawn in the original argument that hunting is the cause for decline in dappled grackle species over logging, is significantly weakened.
Secondly, the change in demographics of Broomall County since the past decade might have an effect on the ecosystem of that County. In other words, the climate change or increase in pollution resulting to toxins in the air might also negatively affect the survival of birds specially the grackle population. For example, increase in industrialization over the past decade might have caused rise in certain toxic chemicals in the air which are lethal to dappled grackle, which might be the reason for decline in grackle population, not the hunting in Broomall County. If the above is true, then the argument does not hold water.
Thirdly, if all hunting, logging and mining is banned in Broomall County, how does it affect the day to day lives of the populace in the County who are heavily dependent for their quotidian needs on the produce from the Swamp ? Perhaps, the ban on mining might lead to increase in unemployment in the County. Maybe the ban on hunting, can cause rapid growth in the number of dappled grackle, thus imbalancing the ecosystem and inconveniencing the people around the County. If this holds merit, then the argument loses its position.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now, is considerably flawed. If the author is able to warrant the three assumptions stated above and offer more evidence (perhaps in the form of a systematic research study), then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of making amendments to the existing provisions of Gordon Act in Wayne County to include a ban on hunting, before it is reauthorized.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 19 15
No. of Words: 525 350
No. of Characters: 2588 1500
No. of Different Words: 212 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.787 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.93 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.706 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 202 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 144 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.632 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.997 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.365 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.568 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.124 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, well, as to, for example, for instance, in conclusion, as well as, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 89.0 55.5748502994 160% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2648.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 525.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04380952381 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78673985869 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77907453662 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.415238095238 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 828.0 705.55239521 117% => 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: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.2423976602 57.8364921388 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.368421053 119.503703932 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6315789474 23.324526521 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.26315789474 5.70786347227 162% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.183964586113 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0607258333301 0.0743258471296 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0590558425769 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102894557582 0.128457276422 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0521140125469 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.3799401198 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.