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 writer of the argument recommend that the principal cause of decreasing the number of amphibians in Xanadu park is the role of a specific kind of fish which usually consumes the amphibians broods as a suitable nourishment; however, this conclusion cannot be accepted as it is in that it rests on a number of assumptions which can be challenged in one way or another.
The first problem with the conclusion is that, the writer assumes that major cause of changing in the population of the indigenous amphibians in the park is due to the specific fishes, while there is no vivid evidence prove that this phenomenon has been occurred by the negative effect of fishes. For example, maybe the other sort of animals attacked the local species of the amphibians. Or maybe the number of amphibian specious has undergone a substantial decrease over these years just because of the competition existing between identical sort of animals settling in a same region. The most consequential cause of this natural event can be related to lack of food resources in the habitats, which only let the stronger specious surviving in the area, and as a resultant the others would not have the opportunity of survive, and breading.
The other problem with the mentioned argument is that the writer assumes that the situation remain the same during the years; however, in most cases this is not true. That would be much better to consider natural happenings and disasters happened in the park, as they might had have changed some of the indispensible features of the habitats. Not only these kind of remarkeble changes may have many detrimental impacts on the habitants, but also they might diminish the food storage in the area.
The third problem concerning this argument is that the writer assumes that the year 2002 is akin to 1975 in all respects which is not logical, since as it is mentioned the pollution of the air and water resources was one of the most vital reasons for diminishing the number of amphibians in the other places. Maybe an increasing amount of contamination made by humans and huge factories in near suburban areas influenced the Xanadu residences ,and brought about dangerous maladies .
In the final analysis, the writer conclusion cannot be taken to be correct because, as it was shown in the body paragraphs above, it depends on a number of assumptions each of which questionable
- “Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.”Write a response in whic70
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the planning department of an electric power company."Several recent surveys indicate that home owners are increasingly eager to conserve energy. At the same time, manufacturers are now marketing many home appli19
- they Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which are unlikely to succeed.66
- The best way for a society is to prepare its young people for leadership in government , industry or other fieldsis by instilling them a sense of cooperation, not competition.66
- 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 amphibi69
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 116, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
... the number of amphibians in Xanadu park is the role of a specific kind of fish w...
Line 3, column 278, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT
Message: Use past participle here: 'had'.
...happened in the park, as they might had have changed some of the indispensible featu...
Line 3, column 291, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE
Message: Simply use 'some'.
...he park, as they might had have changed some of the indispensible features of the habitats....
Line 3, column 352, Rule ID: THIS_NNS
Message: Did you mean 'this kind' or 'these kinds'?
Suggestion: this kind; these kinds
...ible features of the habitats. Not only these kind of remarkeble changes may have many det...
Line 4, column 442, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
...n areas influenced the Xanadu residences ,and brought about dangerous maladies . ...
Line 4, column 480, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
...es ,and brought about dangerous maladies . In the final analysis, the writer conc...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, so, third, while, for example, kind of, sort of, as a result, in most cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1991.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 405.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.91604938272 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74763050937 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498765432099 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 627.3 705.55239521 89% => 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: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 19.7664670659 56% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 36.0 22.8473053892 158% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 78.1937623012 57.8364921388 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 181.0 119.503703932 151% => OK
Words per sentence: 36.8181818182 23.324526521 158% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0909090909 5.70786347227 177% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.125868762325 0.218282227539 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0461050597026 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0237210198283 0.0701772020484 34% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0693548964753 0.128457276422 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.023658580886 0.0628817314937 38% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
automated_readability_index: 20.2 14.3799401198 140% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.4 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.197005988 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.85 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.55 8.32208582834 115% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 26.5 12.3882235529 214% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 16.4 11.1389221557 147% => OK
text_standard: 27.0 11.9071856287 227% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
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.
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 11 15
No. of Words: 405 350
No. of Characters: 1954 1500
No. of Different Words: 199 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.486 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.825 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.695 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 135 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 109 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 36.818 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.497 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.395 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.666 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.066 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5