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 argument, the author claims that there were 7 species of amphibians in Xanadu National Park in 1975, among the seven species of amphibians only four species were left in 2020. There is a worldwide decline in the amphibians , but author thinks that the reason of reduction in number of amphibians ,in the park, is trout.
The argument above is well presented and appears to be relatively sound at first glance: since the trout can be the reason of the reduction in the count of the amphibians in the park, as they were abundant before trout came to Xanadu and trout eats amphibians. However, as more light is shed and relative facts are concerned, the arguments does not seem compelling and leads to question the validity of the argument.
first, author states that in 1975, there were 7 species which were in myriad number of times available in the park and in 2002 only four species are observed by wildlife census. here, author does not present the reason why wildlife census is observing only four species and not all of them. There can be a possibility that other three species are still in numerous count. The fact that census is taking care of only four now does not make a cogent fact to talk about.
Second , there could be a less number of amphibians worldwide but author does not give statistics to prove how much they have reduced and what was the number before. there can be a drastic plummet in count of amphibians worldwide but in Xanadu National Park count can be same as before. Without any proper data nothing can be said effectively.
Third, author asserts that trout are the predators of amphibians. Park has brought them in the facility in 1975 and since then the count of the amphibians is reducing - trout eat amphibian eggs. It's seems logical to say that trout is the reason of reduction in amphibians count but it is highly possible that amphibians are transferred to another national park or somewhere else. Without any solid reason we cannot directly say that trout is the main reason. Also, author does not mention the number of eggs an amphibians can lay at a time, if the count is very large like tow to three thousand or may be more, eating only two or three eggs does not effect on amphibian count. furthermore, we don't know many many eggs live during the normal life cycle of an amphibian. Author does not corroborate this fact with proper information.
In summary, author does not provide any statistics, figure , chart or other information to substantiate his claim. Also, he generalizes a small this on large scale and fail to discuss and consider other reasons for the depletion in the count of amphibians. Without any proper cause and effect, logic provided does not work in persuasion of the argument.
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: 18 15
No. of Words: 481 350
No. of Characters: 2214 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.683 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.603 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.399 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 142 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 94 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 67 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.722 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.455 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.605 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.178 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 230, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...is a worldwide decline in the amphibians , but author thinks that the reason of re...
^^
Line 1, column 303, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...son of reduction in number of amphibians ,in the park, is trout. The argume...
^^
Line 1, column 328, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r of amphibians ,in the park, is trout. The argument above is well presented an...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 13, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the park, is trout. The argument above is well presented and appears to b...
^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: First
...ion the validity of the argument. first, author states that in 1975, there were...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 179, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Here
...pecies are observed by wildlife census. here, author does not present the reason why...
^^^^
Line 9, column 469, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s not make a cogent fact to talk about. Second , there could be a less number of...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 7, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...cogent fact to talk about. Second , there could be a less number of amphibi...
^^
Line 13, column 167, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: There
...reduced and what was the number before. there can be a drastic plummet in count of a...
^^^^^
Line 13, column 176, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nd what was the number before. there can be a drastic plummet in count of amphibi...
^^
Line 17, column 509, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'an amphibian' or simply 'amphibians'?
Suggestion: an amphibian; amphibians
...hor does not mention the number of eggs an amphibians can lay at a time, if the count is very...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 651, Rule ID: AFFECT_EFFECT[6]
Message: Did you mean 'affect'?
Suggestion: affect
... eating only two or three eggs does not effect on amphibian count. furthermore, we don...
^^^^^^
Line 17, column 678, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Furthermore
...ggs does not effect on amphibian count. furthermore, we dont know many many eggs live durin...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 694, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ect on amphibian count. furthermore, we dont know many many eggs live during the nor...
^^^^
Line 17, column 704, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: many
...hibian count. furthermore, we dont know many many eggs live during the normal life cycle ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 21, column 59, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... does not provide any statistics, figure , chart or other information to substanti...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, so, still, then, third, well, in summary
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 : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2288.0 2260.96107784 101% => OK
No of words: 480.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.76666666667 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68069463864 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48040954842 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.458333333333 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 696.6 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.9117264286 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.952380952 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8571428571 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.61904761905 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 16.0 5.25449101796 305% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.262386441519 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0851774886502 0.0743258471296 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105120534499 0.0701772020484 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.156945938526 0.128457276422 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.133387756007 0.0628817314937 212% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.39 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 12.3882235529 137% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.