The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.
"Two studies of amphibians in Xanadu National Park confirm a significant decline in
the numbers of amphibians. In 1975 there were seven species of amphibians in the
park, and there were 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. One proposed explanation is that the decline was caused
by the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1975. (Trout are
known to eat amphibian eggs.)"
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that
could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can
plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The author argues that the species of amphibians are endangered in Xanadu national park, for foraging behavior of another animal called Trout which introduced into park’s water. Trout mainly feed on amphibian’s egg which is expressed by the author as the crucial factor behind mass extinction of amphibians since 1975. While seems rational and logical, the argument cannot totally assure readers to believe it, because alternative explanations have not been presented. Through following paragraphs discussed three possible reason which may contribute to the extinction process of amphibians.
First, as it is clear from their names, amphibians are kinds of animals that live and thrive both on land and water so the quality of water and other environmental situations have great impact on their lives which makes them very vulnerable to climate changes. Unfortunately, sine 1975, the year amphibians were enormous, the weather patterns changed which was felt through unprecedented cold or warm periods with severe storms or tornados across the world. Just like human beings influenced, amphibians are not exception so they got weaker and weaker until when their status is named endangered species.
Second, lack of food resources has been the main reason of different extinctions through history. In the case amphibians settling Xanadu Park, a careful examination should be done to discover the kinds of foods and changes in nutrients given to these animals. For example, replacing genetically foods with natural foods in their diet is a deadly action which gradually decreased their population. Thus, the letter to the editor may be incomplete without addressing the issue of food supplies for amphibians.
Finally, according to the letter, the Xanadu national park had plenty of amphibians in 1975 but their population is drastically reduced in 2002. If one studies the history of veterinary science may find some interesting points that solve the mysterious reduction in the number of amphibians. In the 70’s probably veterinarians did not have as much as knowledge and expertise they have today so the amphibians could not receive proper cure and medications which finally created this extinction. Moreover, the neglignet workers of the national park might be blamed, for they did not take care of amphibians. Therefore, the author has to consider human effects on the reduction of amphibians to provide a detailed account of this horrible incident.
All in all, the letter to the editor which proposes an explanation for the reduction of amphibians in Xanadu national park which mainly accuses the introduction of Trout into park’s waters. However, some possible explanations may change the focus from Trout to factors such as climactic changes, lack of food resources and enough nutrients and inadequate medical services to amphibians. By discussing these possible reasons, the author is able to make his reasoning more logical and convincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 145, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...ulation is drastically reduced in 2002. If one studies the history of veterinary s...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, therefore, thus, while, as to, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2514.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 460.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.4652173913 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6311565067 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86270920105 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 263.0 204.123752495 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.571739130435 0.468620217663 122% => OK
syllable_count: 767.7 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.4109088149 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.315789474 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2105263158 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.89473684211 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.254941021579 0.218282227539 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0756351854068 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0642990044516 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139385171844 0.128457276422 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0449208979949 0.0628817314937 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.3799401198 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => It means the essay is relatively harder to read.
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.74 12.5979740519 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.19 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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: 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.