The evidences provided in the argument does not warrant its prediction that the Madagascan shrimp is on track to become an endangered species.
Firstly, the argument asserts that the recent incursions by deep-sea fishermen is the reason for the reduction of shrimp population. While this can be true, only the presence of deep-sea fishermen does not warrant the population reduction. Other factors must be investigated. For example, the availability of the species' food source should be studied and compared at different temporal states. Another factor should be measuring the environmental variable in the area of the shrimp habitat. Factors such as the water temperature, which can be affected as a result of climate change, or the water acidity levels, which can have unfortunate fluctuations due to the air quality above the sea or release of chemicals into the water. Therefore there are many other factors that can affect the health of a species and they all should be accounted for.
Next, it has been claimed that the population should not return to the normal levels. The argument has not provided any evidence what so ever for this claim. To have a proper prediction of the population, the rate of reproduction of the shrimp, number of its predators, and many other factors similar to the ones stated in the previous paragraph should be considered and entered into a mathematical model in order to confirm the claim.
And finally, it is said that the trend is expected to continue in the next several years. This claim is not backed by any evidence either. This trend can be disrupted in many different ways none of which has been addressed by the prompt. For example, assuming that after thorough research studies the main reason of the population reduction has been found to be the fishermen, they can simply decide to reduce their hunting practice temporarily in order to allow the shrimp population to revive. This can also be achieved through government sanctions, or encouragement and education by environmental protection groups. Therefore, the stated prediction can be disputed by any of these factors.
Overall the argument fails to provide enough evidence to justify its prediction. A more comprehensive investigation into the matter is required in order to make a proper decision for sustaining the Mdagascan shrimp's population.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 157, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rimp population. While this can be true, only the presence of deep-sea fishermen ...
^^
Line 3, column 731, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...or release of chemicals into the water. Therefore there are many other factors that can a...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 171, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
... either. This trend can be disrupted in many different ways none of which has been addressed b...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 463, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g practice temporarily in order to allow the shrimp population to revive. This ca...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'if', 'so', 'therefore', 'while', 'for example', 'such as', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.247596153846 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.165865384615 0.15541462614 107% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0793269230769 0.0836205057962 95% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0384615384615 0.0520304965353 74% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0192307692308 0.0272364105082 71% => OK
Prepositions: 0.122596153846 0.125424944231 98% => OK
Participles: 0.0625 0.0416121511921 150% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.86263456994 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0336538461538 0.026700313972 126% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.139423076923 0.113004496875 123% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0336538461538 0.0255425247493 132% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0120192307692 0.0127820249294 94% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2359.0 2731.13054187 86% => OK
No of words: 382.0 446.07635468 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.17539267016 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42095241839 4.57801047555 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.410994764398 0.378187486979 109% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.319371727749 0.287650121315 111% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.225130890052 0.208842608468 108% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.13612565445 0.135150697306 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86263456994 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 207.018472906 94% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510471204188 0.469332199767 109% => OK
Word variations: 55.487925956 52.1807786196 106% => OK
How many sentences: 19.0 20.039408867 95% => OK
Sentence length: 20.1052631579 23.2022227129 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.1405894884 57.7814097925 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.157894737 141.986410481 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1052631579 23.2022227129 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.578947368421 0.724660767414 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 52.0424359328 51.9672348444 100% => OK
Elegance: 1.93548387097 1.8405768891 105% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.581921630924 0.441005458295 132% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.124042840721 0.135418324435 92% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0780441739615 0.0829849096947 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.571390863971 0.58762219726 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.192611699231 0.147661913831 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.243496570836 0.193483328276 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.150383748648 0.0970749176394 155% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.455955971738 0.42659136922 107% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.115043673788 0.0774707102158 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.408769640129 0.312017818177 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0920370663024 0.0698173142475 132% => OK
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: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 2.0 6.46551724138 31% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 8.0 14.657635468 55% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.