Follow the statement, the author asserts that there is two plausible conclusions for the decline of the blompus population which is an extremely large land mammal has been extinct from this world for 12 thousand years. At first glance, It is likely to rational with the event occurred at that time. However, it is not entirely logically convincing because it ignores some certain crucial assumptions.
First and foremost is, the author omits to elaborate on the intrinsic characteristics of the blompus as an animal itself. Was it cold blooded or warm blooded? Was it living in comparatively tropical topography or was it, in fact, an inhabitant of Arctic 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 providing lack of the major characteristic associated with blompus itself.
Secondly and quite obviously, the first argument presented by the scholars taking consideration into the extinction of blompus as a result of sudden climate change overlooks 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 at that place and we can not make sure whether these climate changes have had any effect on blompus or not. And in some cases, there is still the situation that the blompus could adapt to climate change in quite an appealing fashion.
Similarly, the author unambiguously establishes that the blompus was a carnivorous mammal 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 the blompus was in the food chain of human, nevertheless, it still contains many irrational factors which need filling 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 human 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 complement itself as a plausible explanation for the 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.
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/comment/38972#comment-38972
---------------------
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: 489 350
No. of Characters: 2477 1500
No. of Different Words: 239 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.702 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.065 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.842 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 195 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 148 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 71 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.286 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.933 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.313 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.55 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.111 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 288, Rule ID: KIND_OF_A[1]
Message: Don't include 'a' after a classification term. Use simply 'kind of'.
Suggestion: kind of
.... We are unaware of the fact that what kind of a climate change at that place and we can...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 665, 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 6, column 262, 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...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, if, look, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, similarly, so, still, then, while, as for, in addition, in fact, kind of, as a result, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2522.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 489.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15746421268 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89058129212 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 241.0 204.123752495 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492842535787 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 800.1 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => 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: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.9681893387 57.8364921388 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.095238095 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2857142857 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.09523809524 5.70786347227 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.200524649642 0.218282227539 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0586632818982 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0532005135668 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10719227043 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0268888333387 0.0628817314937 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => 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: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.