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 following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.
In the letter to the editor, the author conclude that the decrease in amphibians has been caused by different reasons which include trout. He based this conclusion on the census conducted in 1975 and observation from the 2002. However, as it stands now, the argument relies on three unwarranted assumptions that could undermine the persuasiveness of the author’s argument.
First of all, the author assumes that a number of amphibians species in Xanadu National Park is an indicative measure of species population. It is possible that the number of species observed in 2002 might not mirror the demeanor of the species in Xanadu National Park. In addition, the method to which the author conducted the species is scientific and it might not mirror the real life situation of the amphibian species in that area. If either of the scenario proves true, it implies that the authors assumption that the method employed in conduction the observation and consensus does not hold water.
Moreover, the author presumes that the number of amphibian species in the Xanudu National Park has been consistently decreasing and it caused by different reasons which include trout. Perhaps, it is possible for other reasons other than trout to have been the reason for the substantial decrease in the number of the amphibian species. Furthermore, the decline in amphibian species could have been caused by human factors and some natural factors, for instance, there might be a change in weather in Xanudu National Park and this could affect the existence of the amphibian species in that region, if either of the reasons are true, it could either the persuasiveness of the author assumption as regards the trout be the reason in decline of amphibian species in 1975.
Finally, the author contended that the water and air in Xanudu Population has been polluted. It is possible that the pollution in water and air could have been caused by some factors other than trout. Perhaps, the reliability of the assertion does not really hold water mainly because of the reasons provided that trout is reason behind this pollution, In addition, global pollution of water and air might not have been caused by this species in consideration, for instance, other type of species might have implicated both the air and the water. If either instance could prove true, the author assumption as regards the pollution of water and air is not compelling enough.
To conclude, although, the author assumption might be true as regards the scientific method employed in the census conducted in 1975, for the argument to be tenable enough, the author must consider the above points important.
Comments
e-rater score report
Sentence: In the letter to the editor, the author conclude that the decrease in amphibians has been caused by different reasons which include trout.
Description: The fragment author conclude that is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace conclude with verb, past tense
Sentence: He based this conclusion on the census conducted in 1975 and observation from the 2002.
Description: The word based is not usually used as a verb, past tense
Suggestion: Refer to based
Sentence: It is possible that the number of species observed in 2002 might not mirror the demeanor of the species in Xanadu National Park.
Description: The word mirror is not usually used as a verb, base: uninflected present, imperative or infinitive
Suggestion: Refer to mirror
Sentence: In addition, the method to which the author conducted the species is scientific and it might not mirror the real life situation of the amphibian species in that area.
Description: The word mirror is not usually used as a verb, base: uninflected present, imperative or infinitive
Suggestion: Refer to mirror
Sentence: If either of the scenario proves true, it implies that the authors assumption that the method employed in conduction the observation and consensus does not hold water.
Description: A noun, plural, common is not usually followed by a noun, singular, common
Suggestion: Refer to authors and assumption
Sentence: Moreover, the author presumes that the number of amphibian species in the Xanudu National Park has been consistently decreasing and it caused by different reasons which include trout.
Description: A noun, singular, proper is not usually followed by an adjective
Suggestion: Refer to Xanudu and National
Sentence: However, as it stands now, the argument relies on three unwarranted assumptions that could undermine the persuasiveness of the author's argument.
Error: unwarranted Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: To conclude, although, the author assumption might be true as regards the scientific method employed in the census conducted in 1975, for the argument to be tenable enough, the author must consider the above points important.
Error: tenable Suggestion: No alternate word
flaws:
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
Read a good grammar book.
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 437 350
No. of Characters: 2171 1500
No. of Different Words: 148 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.572 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.968 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.594 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 172 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.133 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.257 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.427 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.617 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.204 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 497, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...enario proves true, it implies that the authors assumption that the method employed in ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, really, so, as regards, for instance, in addition, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2228.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 437.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09839816934 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57214883401 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66742867974 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.361556064073 0.468620217663 77% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 668.7 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 91.4598636926 57.8364921388 158% => OK
Chars per sentence: 148.533333333 119.503703932 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.1333333333 23.324526521 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.66666666667 5.70786347227 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.248881012194 0.218282227539 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110759212835 0.0743258471296 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.119041661591 0.0701772020484 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149300660837 0.128457276422 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.118295377202 0.0628817314937 188% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 14.3799401198 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.5 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.