The argument claims that not allowing to build the road will preserve the biodiversity of West Lansburg as well as it will ensure a healthy environment. This claim is based on the assumption that repealing of sanctuary status of Eastern Carpenteria had seen decline in it's sea otter population. While it may be true that there was decline in neighboring region after evoking the sanctuary status, that too this occurred 26 years ago. The authors argument does not make a cogent case for the conclusion that they have made. The argument rests on questionable assumptions, suffers form vaguely defined terms and contains numerous flaws that make it difficult to validate the conclusion.
Firstly, it is nowhere stated that after evoking the sanctuary status in Eastern Carpenteria a road was built there which led to decrease in otter population. If it was clearly established in the argument that building the road led to decrease in otter population then it would strengthen the author's claim.
While the information about building the road in Eastern Carpenteria is not mentioned, author also assumes that the habitat and survival conditions for the groundhogs and otters is exactly the same or almost similar. More information is needed to validate this assumption. In case a strong correlation can't be established in the compatibilities of otters and groundhogs with the similar environmental conditions, it will seriously weaken the authors claim.
It is also important to establish the fact that the conditions for survival as well as the relationship of animal existance with human intervention is same in 2004 as it was in 1978. There are many variable that might have changed over the period of 26 years. Unless this similarity can't be established, the authors claim won't be complete. The fact is that the conditions of both the neighbouring regions might be completely unrelated to each other.
Finally, author assumes that envoking the sanctuary status of Eastern Carpenteria in 1978 led to decrease in otter population. The decrease in population of otters might be completely due to some other reason like 'change in environmental conditions which led to decrease in otter population' then it would be completely unrelated to the sanctuary status. So, it could just be a correlation between the events but not an event causing the other. Evidence about the invoking the sanctuary status causing decrease in otter population is essential for author's claim to be valid.
So, the assumptions mentioned above need more evidence for deciding if building road would harm biodiversity in West Lansburg or not.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 423 350
No. of Characters: 2168 1500
No. of Different Words: 180 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.535 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.125 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.886 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 155 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.263 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.122 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.526 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.59 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.07 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 39, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'building'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'allow' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: building
The argument claims that not allowing to build the road will preserve the biodiversity...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 439, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...hat too this occurred 26 years ago. The authors argument does not make a cogent case fo...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... difficult to validate the conclusion. Firstly, it is nowhere stated that after...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 170, 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.
...ch led to decrease in otter population. If it was clearly established in the argum...
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...it would strengthen the authors claim. While the information about building the...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 313, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ssumption. In case a strong correlation cant be established in the compatibilities o...
^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ll seriously weaken the authors claim. It is also important to establish the fa...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 294, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...iod of 26 years. Unless this similarity cant be established, the authors claim wont ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e completely unrelated to each other. Finally, author assumes that envoking th...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sential for authors claim to be valid. So, the assumptions mentioned above need...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, if, may, so, then, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2196.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 422.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20379146919 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53239876712 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93464063061 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.443127962085 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 682.2 705.55239521 97% => 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: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.4055898544 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.578947368 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2105263158 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.10526315789 5.70786347227 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.07172111802 0.218282227539 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0262713862748 0.0743258471296 35% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.037769564213 0.0701772020484 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0488845058632 0.128457276422 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.041456459873 0.0628817314937 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.21 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 98.500998004 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.