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.
he author of the letter argues that although there has been a substantial decline in the number of amphibians worldwide due to global air and water pollution, the decrease in the Xanadu National Park has a different cause. Stated in this way the argument reveals several instances of poor reasoning and fails to mentions several key factors and evidence on which the argument can be evaluated. To support the conclusion, the author attributes the decline in the ambhibians in Xanadu National Park to the introduction of amphibian egg eating trouts. However carefull scrutiny of the evidence reveals that the arugement is unsubstantiated and unpersuasive as it stands.
First of all, the author readily assumes that there has been a steady decline of amphibians from 1975 to 2002 due to introduction of trouts in 1975. However, it is possible that the decline started in very recent years. For example, the global pollution of water and air in the recent years could be the cause of the decline. The argument would be more convincing to reader if it explicitly stated when this decline was first observed between 1975 to 2002.
The author assumes that the trouts ate the amphibian eggs due to which the population of ambhibians declined. However, careful scrutiny of this claim fails to demonstrate any direct correlation between the introduction of trouts and the decline in amphibians. It is possible that the trouts that were intoduced were in lot less numbers as compared to the total population of ambhibians and at the same time there could be various other reasons for the decline. The author should provide further evidence and information about the changes in Xanadu National Park that happened after 1975 to better evaluate the reason for the decline.
Furthermore, the author assumes that the trouts introduced in 1975 survived throughout the time period. It is possible that the trouts died after they were introduced in the park. If this case is true then the trouts will not be the cause for the decline in amphibians.
Thus, the argument of the author as it stands in unpersuasive. The claims made by the author to support the conclusion seem more of wishfull thinking than substantive evidence. To bolster the argument, the author should provide a deeper analysis of causes for the decline in population of amphibians.
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: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 387 350
No. of Characters: 1916 1500
No. of Different Words: 162 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.435 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.951 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.676 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.274 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.375 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.58 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.069 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: He
he author of the letter argues that althou...
^^
Line 1, column 4, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'authors'.
Suggestion: authors
he author of the letter argues that although ther...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 314, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'mention'.
Suggestion: mention
...nstances of poor reasoning and fails to mentions several key factors and evidence on whi...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 551, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...duction of amphibian egg eating trouts. However carefull scrutiny of the evidence revea...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ntiated and unpersuasive as it stands. First of all, the author readily assumes...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s first observed between 1975 to 2002. The author assumes that the trouts ate t...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r evaluate the reason for the decline. Furthermore, the author assumes that the...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, so, then, thus, for example, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1951.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 387.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.04134366925 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74583764175 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.43669250646 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 603.0 705.55239521 85% => 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: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.9162261754 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.388888889 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.38888888889 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.119854158435 0.218282227539 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0412867402014 0.0743258471296 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0472038050092 0.0701772020484 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.069165429389 0.128457276422 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0455739524937 0.0628817314937 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.86 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.