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.
In the letter, the author maintains that the decline of amphibians in Xanadu National Park is happened most likely due to the introduce of trouts. He proves this point by stating the research results of 1975 and 2002, and the fact about the introduce of trouts in 1975. Although this argument may seem convincing at first, the lack of evidence leads me to doubt the credibility of the argument.
To begin with, the author needs to provide more concrete evidence regarding the reseaches in 1975 and 2002 to fairly compare the different time periods. Although the results of each research are mentioned, the time spent on each research and who participated in the research are unclear. Therefore, it is possible that the research in 1975 was conducted for more than two months and research in 2002 spent two weeks to be done. If this is case, researchers in 2002 had little time to thoroughly investigate the national park and observed only small proportion of amphibians. Plus, even if the time spent on each research is almost smae, it is entirely possible that the researcher at 1975 was much more skilled than 2002. In either case, the actual number of amphibians could have been underestimated in 2002.
Moreover, the author must provide valid evidence about the conditions of air and water in national park to exclude them as a factor of decline. In the letter, it is stated that the conditions of air and water became hostile to amphibians globally. Nevertheless, the author dismisses them without mentioning the exact conditions of the national park. There is a high chance that the plants were made near the national park or residence buildings increased near the park. If this is the case, the air could have been in a bad condition and water pollution occured in the nation park, contributing to the decrease in amphibians critically. The author’s dismissal of air and water conditons rather rash and unreasonable without the evidence of real conditions of them.
Finally, the author should supplement the argument with the evidence on the population of trouts after 1975. It is entirely possible that the trouts find it hard to adjust to the national park because of predators and fishers. Before long, the trouts may have been in the state of almost extinction. If this is the case, the trouts could not be the main reason behind the fall of amphibians in the national park.
In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive on many grounds. To bolster the arugment, the author must meticulously investigate the researchs’ background and the conditions of the national park.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 434 350
No. of Characters: 2101 1500
No. of Different Words: 187 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.564 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.841 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.664 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.96 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.558 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.128 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
In the letter, the author maintains that...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 128, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...nal Park is happened most likely due to the introduce of trouts. He proves this point by stat...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 243, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ts of 1975 and 2002, and the fact about the introduce of trouts in 1975. Although this argume...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...oubt the credibility of the argument. To begin with, the author needs to provi...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ld have been underestimated in 2002. Moreover, the author must provide valid ...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...l of amphibians in the national park. In conclusion, the argument is unpersuas...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, so, therefore, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2168.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 434.0 441.139720559 98% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99539170507 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56428161445 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78008640476 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.440092165899 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 649.8 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 26.2472112761 57.8364921388 45% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 103.238095238 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6666666667 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.14285714286 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.17044302047 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0576672354809 0.0743258471296 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0354141388494 0.0701772020484 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.092513094297 0.128457276422 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0257190024174 0.0628817314937 41% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.58 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.