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 prompt proposes that the introduction of Trout to the Xanadu National Park is responsible for the decline of amphibian species within the park. It claims that the amount of amphibians have decreased from the value within 1975 thus the introduction in 1975 of trout eating amphibian eggs in particular is the causal factor. However this claim is extremely unsupported and flawed while ignoring more likely explainations.
To begin, now while it may be true that the population has decreased since 1975, there is no evidence to claim that the population began declining in 1975, or even declined consistently. Consider, someone who is in constantly declining health, particularly because of some disease. You could claim literally anything the person does is the cause of that decline if you just looked a set date something happened and then looked at their health in the future. You could claim that them switching from Pepsi to Coke was the cause of their health decline, clearly this is preposterous. Generally, it is mad to claim that a continuing trend is the result of something that happened after the trend began. Particularly in our case we require information showing that the population was not decreasing before 1975. As without that there is no way to access even the existence of a correleation between the addition of trout and the frog population loss nevermind a causal link.
Furthermore on this point, even in the event that the decline started after the addition of trout there is limited at best evidence that the fish is a reason. The postulate ignores more plausible explainations, which could easily explain the decline over time. For instance, both pollution and global temperature changes could affect the populations of the species. We already know that many species have already gone extinct as the result of climate change, it is very likely that amphibians could as well. Potentially due to the change in the temperature of the water affecting the food supply of the animals. For us to access whether or not the frog population decline could even being claimed to be the result of the trout it has to be demonstrated that the decline is the result of a decreased nominal amount of eggs that reach maturity. Without this it is not possible to access the causal link between the trout and the shrinking frog population.
Moreover even given the decrease of eggs, there is actually significantly evidence, that as a Alex Jones is known to refer to that water pollution can affect frogs reproduction cycle. So one would also need to show that there is exists no pollution in the water that could affect the fruitfulness of the frogs.
Overall, while it is possible that the frog's devastation is the result of the addition of trout, this claim is insufficiently or fallaciously supported. In particular the use of a decline from the selected date in 1975 does not prove that the devastation started in 1975. The prompt also ignores more plausible explainations such as pollution or the water temperature changing over time that need to be ruled out first before the accessment can be made.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: However this claim is extremely unsupported and flawed while ignoring more likely explainations.
Error: explainations Suggestion: explanations
Sentence: As without that there is no way to access even the existence of a correleation between the addition of trout and the frog population loss nevermind a causal link.
Error: correleation Suggestion: correlation
Error: nevermind Suggestion: revering
Sentence: The postulate ignores more plausible explainations, which could easily explain the decline over time.
Error: explainations Suggestion: explanations
Sentence: The prompt also ignores more plausible explainations such as pollution or the water temperature changing over time that need to be ruled out first before the accessment can be made.
Error: explainations Suggestion: explanations
Error: accessment Suggestion: No alternate word
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 524 350
No. of Characters: 2554 1500
No. of Different Words: 225 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.784 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.874 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.734 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 171 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.818 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.438 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.545 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.307 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.4 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.125 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 3 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 328, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ggs in particular is the causal factor. However this claim is extremely unsupported and...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
...pulation loss nevermind a causal link. Furthermore on this point, even in the event that t...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 629, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...supply of the animals. For us to access whether or not the frog population decline could even ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
...out and the shrinking frog population. Moreover even given the decrease of eggs, there ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 93, 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
...ctually significantly evidence, that as a Alex Jones is known to refer to that wa...
^
Line 7, column 40, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'frogs'' or 'frog's'?
Suggestion: frogs'; frog's
... Overall, while it is possible that the frogs devastation is the result of the additi...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, furthermore, however, if, look, may, moreover, so, then, thus, well, while, as to, for instance, in particular, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 13.6137724551 184% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 28.8173652695 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2604.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 524.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96946564885 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7844588288 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78979959154 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.437022900763 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 812.7 705.55239521 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.391466623 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.363636364 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8181818182 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.45454545455 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.124726701122 0.218282227539 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0401331868683 0.0743258471296 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0702384014715 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0815483817175 0.128457276422 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0818126462301 0.0628817314937 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
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.