Fossil evidence indicates that the blompus-an extremely large, carnivorous land mammal-inhabited the continent of Pentagoria for tens of thousands of years until its sudden decline and ultimate extinction about twelve thousand years ago. Scientists have determined that the extinction coincided with a period of significant climate change and with the arrival of the first humans. Some scholars theorize that the climate change so altered the distribution of plants and animals in the environment that the food chain upon which the blompus depended was irretrievably disrupted. Others contend that predation by humans is the more plausible explanation for the rapid population decline.
The evidence being dug by the contemporary studies indicate that an extremely large land mammal – scientifically termed as blompus – has been extinct from this world for about 12 thousand years. Most of the theories attribute this extinction to either climate change – for it must have disrupted the geological ecosystem; or to predation by humans who invaded the earth alongside the millennia when blompus went on extinction. Both of the arguments presented by the author offering the germane explanation to the phenomenon is reluctantly cogent and rife with lack of evidence, shortcomings and constraints.
First and foremost is, the author is unable to elaborate on the intrinsic characteristics of the blompus as an animal itself. Was it a cold blooded or warm blooded? Was it living in comparatively tropical topography or was it infact a inhabitant of Artic poles? The information presented above is not enough to relate the further theories that have been presented as a viable explanation to the extinction of blompus since the paragraph lack the major characteristics associated with blompus itself.
Secondly and quite obviously, the first argument presented by the scholars riving the extinction of blompus as a result of sudden climate change overlook that climate change may not have indeed unfavorable for the blompus itself. We are unaware of the fact that what kind of a climate change too place and if we were being presented with the information whether blompus were warm blooded or coldblooded, the argument would have stronger grounds to establish itself. But just in case the blompus was warm blooded and the climate change resulted in the global warming, indeed blompus could have resulted in adapting to the climate change in quite an appeasing fashion.
Similarly, the author unambiguously establishes that the blompus was carnivorous so scientists ‘imagining’ that plants disruption would have resulted in less food for blompus is scientifically incorrect. The argument itself is unable to present any evidence of what kind of animals they were dependent upon or whether the reproduction of those animals exacerbated or augmented as a result of the climate change.
In addition to that, the second argument devised by the theorists about man being dependent upon blompus for their food is containing many loopholes which need to be filled before we proceed with establishing it as a prudent reason for blompus’s extinction. There is a huge lack of evidence as if blompus was edible or not? What were the eating habits of the humans then? Were they sharing the same topography with blompus or not? Was blompus, a perilous animal to hunt or was readily available for hunting? Could blompus have been used for any other human habit – say transportation? If the author had provided answers to the following questions, it second argument might have had firmer grounds to sophisticate itself as a plausible explanation for extinction of blompus.
While there is some useful information stipulated by the author as for blompus extinction, it cannot be inferred from the passage that the arguments or rather hypothesis it presents could serve as a pragmatic foundation for explaining the extinction of blompus. Hence we cannot fully rely on the predictions presented in the passage.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 234, 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
...ly tropical topography or was it infact a inhabitant of Artic poles? The informat...
^
Line 5, column 268, Rule ID: KIND_OF_A[1]
Message: Don't include 'a' after a classification term. Use simply 'kind of'.
Suggestion: kind of
...f. We are unaware of the fact that what kind of a climate change too place and if we were...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 121, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...g dependent upon blompus for their food is containing many loopholes which need to be filled ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 657, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'seconds'?
Suggestion: seconds
... answers to the following questions, it second argument might have had firmer grounds ...
^^^^^^
Line 11, column 263, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...r explaining the extinction of blompus. Hence we cannot fully rely on the predictions...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'hence', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'similarly', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'as for', 'in addition', 'kind of', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.248263888889 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.163194444444 0.15541462614 105% => OK
Adjectives: 0.078125 0.0836205057962 93% => OK
Adverbs: 0.046875 0.0520304965353 90% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0364583333333 0.0272364105082 134% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.144097222222 0.125424944231 115% => OK
Participles: 0.0659722222222 0.0416121511921 159% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.03741019693 2.79052419416 109% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0243055555556 0.026700313972 91% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.121527777778 0.113004496875 108% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.015625 0.0255425247493 61% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0173611111111 0.0127820249294 136% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3340.0 2731.13054187 122% => OK
No of words: 532.0 446.07635468 119% => OK
Chars per words: 6.27819548872 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80261649409 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.417293233083 0.378187486979 110% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.321428571429 0.287650121315 112% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.223684210526 0.208842608468 107% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.156015037594 0.135150697306 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03741019693 2.79052419416 109% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 207.018472906 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.456766917293 0.469332199767 97% => OK
Word variations: 53.3539293484 52.1807786196 102% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 25.3333333333 23.2022227129 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.1216020101 57.7814097925 133% => OK
Chars per sentence: 159.047619048 141.986410481 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3333333333 23.2022227129 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.761904761905 0.724660767414 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 57.4761904762 51.9672348444 111% => OK
Elegance: 1.85915492958 1.8405768891 101% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.378781361994 0.441005458295 86% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.140552367077 0.135418324435 104% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0950862306648 0.0829849096947 115% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.571338978661 0.58762219726 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.181837053182 0.147661913831 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.158762542383 0.193483328276 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0795805714879 0.0970749176394 82% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.482583651547 0.42659136922 113% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0337927848667 0.0774707102158 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.268282916528 0.312017818177 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0538740889625 0.0698173142475 77% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.82512315271 187% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 14.657635468 89% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.