The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.
"Two studies of amphibians in Xanadu National Park confirm a significant decline in the numbers of amphibians. In 1975 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were 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. One proposed explanation is that the decline was caused by the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1975. (Trout are known to eat amphibian eggs.)"
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The above letter to the editor of an environmental magazine concludes that as per the studies conducted, the decline in the amphibians species and population is mainly due to the introduction of the trout. However, it is rife with faulty assumptions like the validity of the two studies conducted, similar environmental factors spanning over several decades and amphibian eggs becoming prey to the trout.
Firstly, the letter mentions the two studies regarding the amphibians in the Xanadu National Park which confirms the significant decline in their population, but it nowhere mentions the reliability of the data being presented in these two studies. Are these the only studies conducted in the National Park or there were several hundred others studies that were conducted but these two studies were particularly handpicked to deceptively represent the significant decline in the amphibians population? If such a scenario turns out to be true, the facts presented in the letter do not hold water.
Further, the study conducted compares the amphibians population and number of species from 1975 to 2002, hence assuming the environmental conditions stayed the same across several decades. However, this might not be the case, there might be several environmental factors between the years 1975 to 2002 which might have hindered the amphibian population at the Xanadu National Park. Not only environmental, it could also be the National Parks maintenance that could have deteriorated along the years due to staff negligence or limits in the funding, etc. Such an assumption would urge one to question the methodology of the study and cast serious doubts on conclusions being drawn from it.
Lastly, the letter also mentions trout to be one of the causes for the population decline in amphibians, as the amphibian eggs can serve as food for trout. Assuming this as a possible scenario, a question might be raised. Why did it take so long around twenty-five years for the trout to hinder the amphibian growth, if they were introduced in 1975? Assuming the lifecycle of amphibians to be less than a decade, there should have been a drastic decrease in the amphibian population, after the first generations of amphibians eggs were consumed by trout. Thus trout being one of the causes of the population decline is inaccurate.
Taken a whole due to the above-mentioned explanations and limitations about the information of study, the letter is rife with flaws and seems dubious. The study in order to prove its authenticity should provide reasoning and more information for the above-provided arguments and more.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 419 350
No. of Characters: 2152 1500
No. of Different Words: 188 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.524 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.136 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.898 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.933 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.95 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.733 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.367 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.638 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 125, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'amphibians'' or 'amphibian's'?
Suggestion: amphibians'; amphibian's
...e studies conducted, the decline in the amphibians species and population is mainly due to...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 479, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'amphibians'' or 'amphibian's'?
Suggestion: amphibians'; amphibian's
...epresent the significant decline in the amphibians population? If such a scenario turns ou...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 43, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'amphibians'' or 'amphibian's'?
Suggestion: amphibians'; amphibian's
...rther, the study conducted compares the amphibians population and number of species from 1...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 556, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...amphibians eggs were consumed by trout. Thus trout being one of the causes of the po...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, lastly, regarding, so, then, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2204.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 419.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26014319809 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52432199235 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95197691813 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472553699284 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 684.0 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.0095116044 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.75 119.503703932 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1875 23.324526521 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More 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: 0.416122551199 0.218282227539 191% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129510177023 0.0743258471296 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108360337921 0.0701772020484 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.217860126177 0.128457276422 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.115868049252 0.0628817314937 184% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.3799401198 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => 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.