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 author claims that the number of amphibians have declined drastically and only four species of amphibians were spotted, earlier there were seven species. These explanations arise due to introduction of trout into the Xanadu National Park's water in 1975 and trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. However, before author's explanation are accounted for the fact presented in the argument, some alternative explanation must also be considered.
To begin with, which amphibian species were not observed? There are amphibians that not only lay eggs in water but they also lay eggs on land. Turtle, who are amphibians, are known to lay eggs on land. In this scenario, trout cannot eat eggs of turtle, consequently, turtles were not spotted in the park. Thus the author's argument of trout eating the eggs of amphibians does not hold water.
Moreover, are there any exotic species of amphibians in park, which may attract poachers? It may happen that park has some exotic species of amphibians, which has a lot of value in black market. Poachers, who want to earn money, may kill these amphibians or smuggle them to sell. If this scenario has merit, then the author's explanation of trout being the reason for decline in amphibians number and species would be false.
Finally, was there any bush fire or some water pollutant in Xanadu National Park? Every year, there are cases reported of bush fire worldwide, which turns into conflagration and large area of forest or national parks are burnt down. In this scenario, the amphibians who might be on land may have killed in fire. On the other hand, report of water contamination, if happened in the park was not mentioned. The amphibians, who are susceptible to such pollutants may also die. If the above is true, the author's claim would be weakened or negated.
To recapitulate, author presents an interesting but a flawed argument and has failed to consider more alternative explanations for his claims. Had he provided more explanations as mentioned above, the argument would have been persuasive. As it remains, the author's argument is too weak to be true. Hence, I remain unconvinced.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-07-06 | yomi idris | 50 | view |
| 2022-07-04 | Vincent Samuel | 60 | view |
| 2022-02-10 | piyushac123 | 54 | view |
| 2021-07-28 | manjunath180397 | 58 | view |
| 2020-09-30 | arjun8001 | 53 | view |
- The following appeared in a memo from the director of student housing at Buckingham College To serve the housing needs of our students Buckingham College should build a number of new dormitories Buckingham s enrollment is growing and based on current tren 79
- The following appeared in the summary of a study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin a medicine used to treat headaches Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates for t 66
- Governments should place few if any restrictions on scientific research and development 50
- The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner 58
- 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 abu 53
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 355 350
No. of Characters: 1732 1500
No. of Different Words: 176 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.341 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.879 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.644 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 108 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 83 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.136 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.285 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.727 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.523 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.104 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 152, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...but they also lay eggs on land. Turtle, who are amphibians, are known to lay eggs on la...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 306, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
..., turtles were not spotted in the park. Thus the authors argument of trout eating th...
^^^^
Line 3, column 315, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... were not spotted in the park. Thus the authors argument of trout eating the eggs of am...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 318, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...l. If this scenario has merit, then the authors explanation of trout being the reason f...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 258, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ave been persuasive. As it remains, the authors argument is too weak to be true. Hence,...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, then, thus, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1791.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 355.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.04507042254 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34067318298 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7445207899 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.504225352113 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 552.6 705.55239521 78% => 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: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.8980806501 57.8364921388 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.4090909091 119.503703932 68% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.1363636364 23.324526521 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.31818181818 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => 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: 0.287109802534 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0865919292977 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0907272471956 0.0701772020484 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.166427403433 0.128457276422 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0973204936227 0.0628817314937 155% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 14.3799401198 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.71 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.5 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 98.500998004 70% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.