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 presented in the letter to the editor of the environmental magazine is well presented and reasonable at a glance. In the letter, the author concludes that there is a reduction in the number of amphibian species in Xanadu National Park caused by trout which was introduced into the park in 1975. The conclusion of the author was based on a 1975 census and 2002 observations made in the park. While it might be true that the trout is the reason for the decline in the number of amphibians in the park, before the credibility of the argument can be properly measured, the author needs to provide three pieces of additional evidences.
First of all, the author assumes that the 1975 wildlife census was conducted scientifically. However, no evidence is offered to prove the credibility of this assumption. It is possible that the census was not conducted well. Perhaps, the personnel who conducted the census might not have the expertise required to carry out census. Even if they are expert, it is possible they were not careful enough during the process of counting, which will have large influence on the overall result of the census. Additionally, the method used in counting the amphibians might not have been the best method. If the scenarios described above are true, then the validity of the author’s contention is weakened.
Additionally, the author makes assumption that the only cause of the decline in the number of amphibians is the trout introduced. This may not be true. For example, one of the factors that might have caused the decline could be the pollution of water and air that the author ignores in his argument. Besides, it is possible that predators are the cause of the disappearance of the amphibians in the park. The credibility of the author’s argument is therefore weakened if the examples above are valid.
Finally, the author’s argument lies on the assumption that a species being easily observable is indicative of its actual number. Perhaps some of the species were hiding which made them not to be noticed while observation is being carried out. Also, is possible for the observer to make mistake while observing. The author’s contention is hampered if these examples are correct.
In conclusion, the argument presented in the letter to the editor of the environmental magazine presented in the prompt above in the prompt above might be valid, but, there are no information to support the assumptions described earlier, as a result, the argument is weakened. Therefore, substantial evidence is needed to prove that the cause of the decline in the amphibians in Xanadu National Park is the trout introduced to the park.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactorily Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 446 350
No. of Characters: 2168 1500
No. of Different Words: 174 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.596 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.861 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.718 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 117 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.273 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.864 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.773 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.335 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.092 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 139, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ndicative of its actual number. Perhaps some of the species were hiding which made them not...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, finally, first, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, well, while, for example, in conclusion, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 38.0 19.6327345309 194% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2233.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 446.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0067264574 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5955099915 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82316200757 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.417040358744 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 711.9 705.55239521 101% => 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: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.2326158239 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.5 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2727272727 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.40909090909 5.70786347227 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
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: 0.232395368713 0.218282227539 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0682625485744 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0705785952096 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134899332357 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0718873286447 0.0628817314937 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.