The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.
"In 1975 a wildlife census found that there were seven species of amphibians in Xanadu National Park, with abundant numbers of each species. However, in 2002 only four species of amphibians were observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. There has been a substantial decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide, and global pollution of water and air is clearly implicated. The decline of amphibians in Xanadu National Park, however, almost certainly has a different cause: in 1975, trout — which are known to eat amphibian eggs — were introduced into the park."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument
The argument concludes that introduction of trout: an animal that eats amphibian eggs is the sole cause for the decline and extinction of species of amphibians in the Xanadu National Park. The editor bolsters his claim by further stating that global air pollution and water pollution did not cause the decline. It was the introduction of perilous species- trouts which caused the decline. The argument though seems quite convincing at first glance, but on closer consideration, one can see the entire argument is rift with assumptions for which no substantial evidence has been provided.
The main evidence which would help us to evaluate the sole cause of the decline of amphibians is the correlation between trout eating habits and the decline of amphibians. The argument readily assumes trout to be the main reason though no substantial reason has been provided. If we were to learn the evidence that the population of trout introduced was very small in proportion to the harm caused to the amphibians and with their low fertility rate they could not take down the entire species of amphibians. In this case, the argument is weakened and would require to re-consider its reasons. There is also a probability that most of the trouts introduced were killed or died as they were unable to survive in the new environment; thereby, dismissing the entire claim. To back up his claim, the author needs to present a researched study about previous cases in which the introduction of trout caused harm or a detailed analysis of the present scenario.
In addition to this, evidences needs to be provided based on which the global air pollution and water pollution have been refuted as a factor contributing to the decline of amphibians. If we were to discover pieces of evidence claiming that the pollution of water where the amphibians inhabited was having an extreme level of toxins and chemicals making the water unfit for the survival of amphibians. This has led to the accumulation of deleterious chemicals in amphibians which ultimately lead to their death. According to this possibility, the argument would be wrong at discarding an integral factor from the scenario. Had, the argument cogently stated the test results of the water samples collected from the national wildlife the claim would have substantial proof to back up its claim.
Moreover, the editor has only considered two factors global air and water pollution and trouts for the decline in amphibians. Out of which, he hastily repudiates global pollution as a cause and places the entire burden on trouts. Nonetheless, there can be various other reasons like the presence of predators who kill amphibians for their eggs and scales to earn a hefty amount of money in the black market. The main reason could also have been that the species of amphibians were unable to survive in their new habitat maybe because of climate issues or absence of their food source which led to a slow decline of their race. The author needs to dwell deeper and take into consideration the other issues which might be significant in the decline of the amphibians.
To sum up, the author claim might have certain merits but stated in this way it fails to make a solid case. The author needs to cogently state the relationship between the introduction of trouts and how they led to the decline of species of amphibians. He also needs to evaluate other factors like predators and present concrete evidence that global pollution plays no role. Without answers to these questions, the argument can not be relied and trouts can not be considered the only cause.
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: 24 15
No. of Words: 603 350
No. of Characters: 2950 1500
No. of Different Words: 243 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.955 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.892 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.628 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 209 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 152 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 107 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.125 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.907 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.417 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.328 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.328 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.11 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 173, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...g habits and the decline of amphibians. The argument readily assumes trout to be th...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, moreover, nonetheless, so, well, in addition, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 89.0 55.5748502994 160% => OK
Nominalization: 36.0 16.3942115768 220% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2998.0 2260.96107784 133% => OK
No of words: 603.0 441.139720559 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.97180762852 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9554069778 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69326397494 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 204.123752495 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.414593698176 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 936.0 705.55239521 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.0496681473 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.916666667 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.125 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.41666666667 5.70786347227 60% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.139428955744 0.218282227539 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0456176855834 0.0743258471296 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0580899113947 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0906272454634 0.128457276422 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0420324216154 0.0628817314937 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.84 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.