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 argument that the Madagascar shrimp will quickly become an endangered species due to excessive fishing activity is not entirely cogent as it is fails to give appropriate insight on hiw the conclusion will be reached.
Firstly, perhaps presence of authority in regard to marine matter would preclude the endangerement of the Madagascar shrimps by restricting fishing considering the fact that these are the necessary steps on impede such matters. If so, then the arguments conclusion that the species will be endangered may not hold true. This possibilty will inevitably undermine this argument.
Secondly, the argument is not clear on the breeding period of the shrimps. If their, breeding periods are ephemeral and they produce numerously, then probably, endargement can be far fetched thus weakening the argument.
Thirdly, it is worth noting that fishing is an economic activity and solely depends on the demand. Given that the market of the shrimps is not defined, there may be demand for the fish or not. It can be agrued that excess fishing suggests otherwise, but it is important to consider that fishing is not solely responsible the reduction of the shrimp. In that case then, the demand aspect matters and it must be exteremly high so as to cause the endangerement of the shrimps.
Shripms and many living organisms alike, are mobile in nature. The marine life is so complex and the water bodies vast, thus breeding points of the shripms is expected to be quite diverse. With this in mind, given that the argumnet does not say much about the scope of the incursion, the argument is not particularly weighty as this easily weaken the argument.
In conclusion, the argument is rife with fallacies and the information provided is not adequate in supporting it. Therefore, the author could consider being more clear and provide supporting eveidences that indeed the shripms will be endangered.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The argument that the Madagascar shrimp will quickly become an endangered species due to excessive fishing activity is not entirely cogent as it is fails to give appropriate insight on hiw the conclusion will be reached.
Error: hiw Suggestion: his
Sentence: Firstly, perhaps presence of authority in regard to marine matter would preclude the endangerement of the Madagascar shrimps by restricting fishing considering the fact that these are the necessary steps on impede such matters.
Error: endangerement Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: This possibilty will inevitably undermine this argument.
Error: possibilty Suggestion: possibility
Sentence: If their, breeding periods are ephemeral and they produce numerously, then probably, endargement can be far fetched thus weakening the argument.
Error: numerously Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: endargement Suggestion: enlargement
Sentence: It can be agrued that excess fishing suggests otherwise, but it is important to consider that fishing is not solely responsible the reduction of the shrimp.
Error: agrued Suggestion: agreed
Sentence: In that case then, the demand aspect matters and it must be exteremly high so as to cause the endangerement of the shrimps.
Error: endangerement Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: exteremly Suggestion: extremely
Sentence: The marine life is so complex and the water bodies vast, thus breeding points of the shripms is expected to be quite diverse.
Error: shripms Suggestion: ships
Sentence: With this in mind, given that the argumnet does not say much about the scope of the incursion, the argument is not particularly weighty as this easily weaken the argument.
Error: argumnet Suggestion: argument
Sentence: In conclusion, the argument is rife with fallacies and the information provided is not adequate in supporting it.
Error: rife Suggestion: rise
Sentence: Therefore, the author could consider being more clear and provide supporting eveidences that indeed the shripms will be endangered.
Error: shripms Suggestion: ships
Error: eveidences Suggestion: evidences
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 12 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 312 350
No. of Characters: 1556 1500
No. of Different Words: 163 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.203 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.987 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.67 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 94 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.8 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.943 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.733 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.634 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.053 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 244, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...on impede such matters. If so, then the arguments conclusion that the species will be end...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 425, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...t matters and it must be exteremly high so as to cause the endangerement of the shrimps....
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, as to, in conclusion, in regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 55.5748502994 50% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1599.0 2260.96107784 71% => OK
No of words: 312.0 441.139720559 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.125 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74484567168 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.535256410256 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 495.9 705.55239521 70% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => 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: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.8568617812 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.6 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.33333333333 5.70786347227 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0734995234046 0.218282227539 34% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0268035847339 0.0743258471296 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0238734306591 0.0701772020484 34% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0397345637489 0.128457276422 31% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0147285131737 0.0628817314937 23% => 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: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.