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 to the editor of an environmental magazine, it is stated that in 1975 wildlife census there were seven species of amphibian and each of them in abundant quantity in Xanadu National Park. In 2002, they were reduced to four and there quantity has also been reduced. The reason for reduction given by the author is the introduction of trout-which are known to eat amphibian eggs against the worldwide reduction of amphibian due to the global pollution of air and water. The reasons provided by author are merely a assumption as there are no evidences provided by the author to prove the reasons true.
First of all, the author states that there were abundant numbers of amphibian in each of seven species that were there in 1975. while in 2202, they were reduced to four and their population drastically reduced. Here, the author had neither provided any numbers related to the population of the amphibian in 1975 nor what is the population in 2002. Also he/she had failed to provide the decrease in the population. He/She had not provided any figures related to any of the three mentioned above. which makes us to think that the reasons taken by the author are just the assumption without any evidences.
Secondly, author says that the reason for the substantial decrease in the amphibian worldwide is global pollution of water and air. How is that concluded? Author had not give any survey or any research which has proved that. It seems that it is the thinking of the author which is providing this type of answers regarding the reduction of population of amphibians. He/she had not given any proof regarding any survey from which the author had deduced the reason for the reduction of the population of the amphibians worldwide. Thus, it can be inferred that these reason cannot be considered as true as there are no evidences related to it.
Thirdly, it is been stated by the author that the reason for the decrease of amphibian in Xanadu National Park is not global pollution of water and air but the introduction of the animal named trout in the park which are known to eat the amphibian eggs. Again, there are no amount of eggs eaten by trout given or the eggs produced by the amphibian in the same period given. Also how can one conclude that the reason for decrease is only trout and there is no effect of air pollution and water pollution to the amphibian. Anything which can prove author's point in the argument is not given. So, these reason should also not be considered true.
At the end, it can be concluded that author is just taking on the hypothetical points. He/she fails to give any proof's which prove their point true and thus there argument needs to be rechecked.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
flaws:
you are on the wrong track for GRE arguments. We should not ask more given evidence or number, but from those data/survey/study given, we need to find out flaws.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 477 350
No. of Characters: 2184 1500
No. of Different Words: 167 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.673 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.579 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.457 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 143 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 100 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.714 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.278 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.524 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.346 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.533 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.121 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 524, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...e reasons provided by author are merely a assumption as there are no evidences pr...
^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he author to prove the reasons true. First of all, the author states that the...
^^^^
Line 4, column 133, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: While
... seven species that were there in 1975. while in 2202, they were reduced to four and ...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 353, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...975 nor what is the population in 2002. Also he/she had failed to provide the decrea...
^^^^
Line 4, column 500, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Which
...ed to any of the three mentioned above. which makes us to think that the reasons take...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 500, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “which” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ed to any of the three mentioned above. which makes us to think that the reasons take...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he assumption without any evidences. Secondly, author says that the reason fo...
^^^^
Line 6, column 175, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'given'.
Suggestion: given
.... How is that concluded? Author had not give any survey or any research which has pr...
^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...here are no evidences related to it. Thirdly, it is been stated by the author...
^^^^
Line 8, column 279, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'amounts'?
Suggestion: amounts
...the amphibian eggs. Again, there are no amount of eggs eaten by trout given or the egg...
^^^^^^
Line 8, column 379, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...the amphibian in the same period given. Also how can one conclude that the reason fo...
^^^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... should also not be considered true. At the end, it can be concluded that aut...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, while, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2240.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 473.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.73572938689 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66353547975 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4925044856 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.367864693446 0.468620217663 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 704.7 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.2543220958 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.3913043478 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5652173913 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.17391304348 5.70786347227 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 12.0 5.25449101796 228% => Less language errors wanted.
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: 0.16892467076 0.218282227539 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.060959080457 0.0743258471296 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.128371825497 0.0701772020484 183% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108478540512 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.108093298478 0.0628817314937 172% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 14.3799401198 78% => 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: 10.21 12.5979740519 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.07 8.32208582834 85% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => 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.