Recent incursions by deep-sea fishermen into the habitat of the Madagascan shrimp have led to a significant reduction in the species population. With the breeding season fast approaching, the number of shrimp should soon begin to increase. Nonetheless, the population should not return to the levels before the fishing boats arrived. Because this trend is expected to continue over the next several years, the Madagascan shrimp will quickly become an endangered species.
The statement asserts that, Madagascan shrimp population is decreasing and will quickly become an endangered species. The premises of the conclusion is that, due to incursions by deep-sea fishermen into the habitata of the Madagascan shrimp have led to a significant reduction in the species population. However, in deeper analysis, it is evident that, the argument provides illogical assumptions and lacks information, leading to a indefensible conclusion.
The first flaw in the argument is that, the statement just asserts that, the recent incursion have led to a significant reduction in the species population. But the question is, what is the basis of that assertion? Do they have any concrete evidence or data of decreasing population of Madagascan shrimp? If so, are those data and evidence are enough credible to reach that type of conclusion? There are no that type of indication in the argument's statement and the author has not clarified those questions. The author could strengthen his assertion by supplying those required information abovementioned.
Additionally, the statement flaws in another assumption, which is, it assumes the population of the shrimp species should not return to the levels, though the breeding season is fast approaching. What makes the assumption true to be accepted?. Why the nuber of shrimp should not incerase to the previous level in the breeding season? Does the fishermen boat is fully responsible for that? Does the catching of small fish is the only reason or there are some other factors like, toxic density in the sea water increases in the month when shrimp breeding season is approaching, and that cause the reduction and death of small shrimp? Those questions are unanswered and needs to be focused on by the author to substantiate his claim.
Moreover, the author predicts that, if this trend is expected to continue over the next several years, the Madagascan shrimp will become an endangered species. But he fails to provide the real cause of the trend and the percentage of reduction of shrimp due to that incursion, so how could the author make a prediction of time length required to endanger the species? So, that specious assumption makes render the argument pointless.
So, to conclude, the argument lacks information and seems to provide irrational assumptions. The conclusion of the author seems tenuous, due to lack of logical flow and irrelevent assumption. The author should present more concrete evidence and logical information to substantiate his viewpoints and to make the argument a cogent one.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 432, 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
...tions and lacks information, leading to a indefensible conclusion. The first ...
^
Line 3, column 405, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...each that type of conclusion? There are no that type of indication in the argument...
^^
Line 3, column 405, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'noes', 'nos'?
Suggestion: noes; nos
...each that type of conclusion? There are no that type of indication in the argument...
^^
Line 7, column 369, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[4]
Message: “So , that” 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.
...ength required to endanger the species? So, that specious assumption makes render the ar...
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'so', 'then']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.255411255411 0.25644967241 100% => OK
Verbs: 0.15367965368 0.15541462614 99% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0844155844156 0.0836205057962 101% => OK
Adverbs: 0.025974025974 0.0520304965353 50% => Some adverbs wanted.
Pronouns: 0.0151515151515 0.0272364105082 56% => OK
Prepositions: 0.101731601732 0.125424944231 81% => OK
Participles: 0.0281385281385 0.0416121511921 68% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.97754106229 2.79052419416 107% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0411255411255 0.026700313972 154% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.145021645022 0.113004496875 128% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0151515151515 0.0255425247493 59% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.012987012987 0.0127820249294 102% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2585.0 2731.13054187 95% => OK
No of words: 412.0 446.07635468 92% => OK
Chars per words: 6.27427184466 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50530610838 4.57801047555 98% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.388349514563 0.378187486979 103% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.31067961165 0.287650121315 108% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.254854368932 0.208842608468 122% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.174757281553 0.135150697306 129% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97754106229 2.79052419416 107% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 207.018472906 94% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.470873786408 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 51.0852136385 52.1807786196 98% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 19.619047619 23.2022227129 85% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.8109622373 57.7814097925 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.095238095 141.986410481 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.619047619 23.2022227129 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.333333333333 0.724660767414 46% => More Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 50.6870087841 51.9672348444 98% => OK
Elegance: 1.97777777778 1.8405768891 107% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.633223043728 0.441005458295 144% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.140434045973 0.135418324435 104% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0646403923059 0.0829849096947 78% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.590778511676 0.58762219726 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.169309734406 0.147661913831 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.279538247924 0.193483328276 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.165668746709 0.0970749176394 171% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.569590464941 0.42659136922 134% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0525467778816 0.0774707102158 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.471905520926 0.312017818177 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0941803512034 0.0698173142475 135% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => 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.