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 letter tells us about problem faced in Xanadu National Park about declining of amphibian since 1975. The author tells us about one predicted reason behind it is the introduction of trout in park's water, those are known for eating amphibian eggs. Though the letter is supported with the certain kind of study and statistical information, reaching to sudden conclusion is not acceptable till adequate number of evidence and details about study are provided.
The letters tells about some two studies of amphibians carried out in Xanadu National Park. But, with a lack of details of studies en-numerous questions raise in one's mind. One absolute sensible question can be asked is why two studies where needed? Where any kind of flaus were observed in either of studies? As the extinction of species was observed between 1975 to 2002, the author need to answer whether these studies also carried out in same time instants? Also, the main focus of study was just amphibians or all species present. Other questionable topics can be area of Park in which survey was carried, sample population of species considered and many more. Thus, without answering these questions the author is not in the state to make any further conclusion.
The stated prediction of the paragraph is the introduction of trout was one reason for declination of the amphibians as they are amphibian eggs eater. Though it matches the nature of problem, but there are more alternative reasons possible which need to be considered. One can be some other predators or potchers present became threat to lives of the species. One absolute possibility is the facilities provided by National Park are not appropriate enough for the survival of species. Also, some climate change or change of habitat may affect the lives of the species as it is the rule of nature 'survival of fittest'. Thus, the proper survey is required with considering all possibilities, before reaching any conclusion.
At an instance, the author states about the declining of species between year 1975 to 2002. But, without knowing overall picture it is not possible to reach at any specific conclusion. The assumption that the author makes is the decline is only observed in between these years only. There may be possibility that same declination rate was observed before 1975, but as survey started since 1975 these events are not recorded. This makes the situation in favour of trouts and thus, the author need to find any alternative reason behind the declination.
Finally, from overall discussion the only advice the author should follow is considered all aspect possible for declination and based on those select the most suitable reason for the extinction of the amphibians.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 447 350
No. of Characters: 2230 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.598 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.989 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.591 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: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.435 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.859 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.565 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.297 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.297 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.066 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 13, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'tell'.
Suggestion: tell
... about study are provided. The letters tells about some two studies of amphibians ca...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 162, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
... studies en-numerous questions raise in ones mind. One absolute sensible question ca...
^^^^
Line 2, column 472, Rule ID: MAIN_FOCUS[1]
Message: Use simply 'focus'.
Suggestion: focus
...ed out in same time instants? Also, the main focus of study was just amphibians or all spe...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 140, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'eggs'' or 'egg's'?
Suggestion: eggs'; egg's
...of the amphibians as they are amphibian eggs eater. Though it matches the nature of ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, if, may, so, thus, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2275.0 2260.96107784 101% => OK
No of words: 447.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08948545861 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59808378696 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6544922762 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472035794183 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 716.4 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.1860434327 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.9130434783 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4347826087 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.0 5.70786347227 35% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 14.0 4.67664670659 299% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.256935139795 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0778007548172 0.0743258471296 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.08714501762 0.0701772020484 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135836472833 0.128457276422 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0813749629227 0.0628817314937 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.