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.
The author of the letter claimed that the species of amphibians in Xanadu National Park has drastically reduced caused by the introduction of trout to the park. However, the argument is not plausible due to the lack of the evidence.
To evaluate the argument, the fist evidenced needed is about the real number of species and that of each species. The author assumed that the number of amphibians has tremendously declined based on the observation that only four species left and each of them has declined drastically in number. However, the observation could be not accurate. If a great deal of amphibians including three other species were not observed due to some reasons, such as construction, hidden places, and time of observation. If this proves to be true, the author’s argument amount trout causing the reduction of amphibians is not plausible.
To evaluate the argument, the second evidence needed is about the impact of water and air pollution has on emphabians and the pollution level in the Xanadu National Park area. As the authors mentioned the global decline, if the emphabians are susceptible to pollution and the pollution level is high enough to threaten them. It could result in the decline of emphabinas in number. If this proves to be true, the that the author ignores the effect of the pollution and blames trout is not cogent.
To evaluate the argiuemnt, the last evidence needed is the amount of trout in the park. The trout was introduced to the park in 1975; however, due to amount introduced and the local ecosystem, the trout may not have a big enough population to substantially threaten the number of the species and the amount as a whole. If it proves to be true, the author’s advocacy that trout is the reason of amphabianas’ tremendous decline is not convincing.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: To evaluate the argument, the second evidence needed is about the impact of water and air pollution has on emphabians and the pollution level in the Xanadu National Park area.
Error: emphabians Suggestion: amphibians
Sentence: As the authors mentioned the global decline, if the emphabians are susceptible to pollution and the pollution level is high enough to threaten them.
Error: emphabians Suggestion: amphibians
Sentence: It could result in the decline of emphabinas in number.
Error: emphabinas Suggestion: amphibians
Sentence: To evaluate the argiuemnt, the last evidence needed is the amount of trout in the park.
Error: argiuemnt Suggestion: argument
Sentence: If it proves to be true, the author's advocacy that trout is the reason of amphabianas' tremendous decline is not convincing.
Error: amphabianas Suggestion: amphibians
--------------------
argument 1 -- not OK. In GRE/GMAT, we have to accept all data or evidence are true. It is important to find out loopholes behind surveys or studies.
argument 2 -- OK
--------------------
read a sample which argues pretty well:
http://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-essays/following-letter-editor-environme…
-------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 305 350
No. of Characters: 1459 1500
No. of Different Words: 123 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.179 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.784 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.688 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 110 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 76 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 57 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.786 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.529 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.643 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.378 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.57 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.12 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lution and blames trout is not cogent. To evaluate the argiuemnt, the last evid...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'so', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.252173913043 0.25644967241 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.144927536232 0.15541462614 93% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0753623188406 0.0836205057962 90% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0463768115942 0.0520304965353 89% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0115942028986 0.0272364105082 43% => OK
Prepositions: 0.124637681159 0.125424944231 99% => OK
Participles: 0.0347826086957 0.0416121511921 84% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.89915425676 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0405797101449 0.026700313972 152% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.153623188406 0.113004496875 136% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00869565217391 0.0255425247493 34% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0 0.0127820249294 0% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1825.0 2731.13054187 67% => OK
No of words: 305.0 446.07635468 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.98360655738 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.57801047555 91% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.36393442623 0.378187486979 96% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.262295081967 0.287650121315 91% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.206557377049 0.208842608468 99% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.137704918033 0.135150697306 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89915425676 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Unique words: 125.0 207.018472906 60% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.409836065574 0.469332199767 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 39.4750025925 52.1807786196 76% => OK
How many sentences: 14.0 20.039408867 70% => OK
Sentence length: 21.7857142857 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.1493687266 57.7814097925 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.357142857 141.986410481 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7857142857 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.428571428571 0.724660767414 59% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 48.0152224824 51.9672348444 92% => OK
Elegance: 2.02857142857 1.8405768891 110% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.44794202971 0.441005458295 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.216651917486 0.135418324435 160% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.117078293124 0.0829849096947 141% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.686395692106 0.58762219726 117% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.169571266959 0.147661913831 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.253252881566 0.193483328276 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0974709577128 0.0970749176394 100% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.633048524496 0.42659136922 148% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0625466657656 0.0774707102158 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.381795416019 0.312017818177 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0695913586667 0.0698173142475 100% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 2.0 6.46551724138 31% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 10.0 14.657635468 68% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.