The Gordon Act, which established a wildlife refuge in the Big Dark Swamp, is currently up for reauthorization. The act prohibits the building of roads or cutting of old growth trees in the swamp, though it permits hunting. Many blamed logging activities for the decline of the bird population, especially that of the dappled grackle. The grackle population has continued to decline since the passage of the law, demonstrating that the Gordon Act has not been sufficient to protect the species. Another nearby refuge, the Wayne County Marsh Habitat, bans all mining, logging, and hunting. Wayne County officials have not reported a decline in the grackle population there. This proves that hunting, not logging, was responsible for the population drop in Broomall County. Thus, Broomall County should not reauthorize the Gordon Act unless it is amended to include the same provisions as those in Wayne County.
In the editorial from the newspaper, it is stated that hunting is the primary reason of decline in bird population especially dappled grackle, hence the author concludes the assertion by opting against Gordon Act unless rules are amended to include the same provisions as those in Wayne Country. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, two questions must be answered.
First of all, author assumes Wayne County officials have not reported a decline in the grackle population, perhaps birds other than grackle are injured and the decline of other birds are not evaluated by the County officials. Further, maybe more number of grackle dead went unnoticed by the officials. If either of these scenarios has merit, then conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.
secondly, author from his conclusion assumes hunting is the main reason for the decline of bird population. perhaps, birds may die because of excessive heat, lack of drinking water or other natural phenomenons. Moreover, the people of Wayne County are far sympathetic for wildlife compared to Broomal County. If the above is true, then the argument does not hold water.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is unable to answer the questions above and offer more evidence, then it will be possible to fully check the viability of the proposed recommendation.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 10 15
No. of Words: 234 350
No. of Characters: 1206 1500
No. of Different Words: 135 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.911 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.154 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.734 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 97 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 75 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 48 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.842 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.9 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.356 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.623 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.039 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Some sentences in the essay…
Some sentences in the essay sound like the ones used by GregMat.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Secondly
... argument is significantly weakened. secondly, author from his conclusion assumes hun...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 109, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Perhaps
...son for the decline of bird population. perhaps, birds may die because of excessive hea...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 1.0 13.6137724551 7% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 9.0 28.8173652695 31% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 55.5748502994 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1245.0 2260.96107784 55% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 234.0 441.139720559 53% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32051282051 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91114542567 4.56307096286 86% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85552281017 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 204.123752495 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.615384615385 0.468620217663 131% => OK
syllable_count: 397.8 705.55239521 56% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
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: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.9413212886 57.8364921388 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.181818182 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2727272727 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.81818181818 5.70786347227 154% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0342290146077 0.218282227539 16% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0120627679753 0.0743258471296 16% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0209589344254 0.0701772020484 30% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0200912115825 0.128457276422 16% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0201105877234 0.0628817314937 32% => 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: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.27 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 98.500998004 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum 250 words wanted.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.