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.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The argument depicted above concludes that the Madagascan Shrimp would become an endangered species is based on few flawed assumptions and with a dearth of detailed analysis and evidences as mentioned below.
On what base is the conclusion of - reduced Madagascan shrimp population ascribed to incursions by deep-sea fisherman- hinged on? Was it the conclusion of a scientific survey or is it a mere putative/conjectural reasoning? It is of paramount importance to know the methodology of the finding to predict the plaussible inherent flaws. The argument doesnt mention about the reliability of this finding.
Immaterial of the way adopted to derive at that inference, was any other possibility for the reduction in the species population speculated and scavenged for? There could possibly be a new inhabitant to that region, which preys on the Madagascan shrimp. There could have been an unchecked discharge of poisonous chemicals from a nearby factory into the waterbody which proved inmical to the shrimp species. There is a myriad of plausibilites which havent been refuted by the argument . Such evidences could indubitably strengthen the argument.
Has any previous study indicated an increased population of species in that particular region during the breeding season? There are certain creatures which are expected to migrate to a different region for breeding. If such is the case, it is obvious that the populace of Madagascan shrimp would drop in the area of observance. Does the Madagascan shrimp fall in such categories of species? By not having considered this possibility, the argument has assumed that the Madagascan shrimp breed in the same region, which could be flawed.
Ultimately, notwithstanding the plausibility of the argument to be valid, such a disposition cannot be ascertained with the current stand. The argument could delineate the reasonings of their assumptions and provide further exposition for the questions posed above inorder to thoroughly analyse the authencity and assimilate the conclusive results of the argument.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 319 350
No. of Characters: 1706 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.226 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.348 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.002 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 137 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.765 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.847 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.059 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.327 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.559 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.082 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 348, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...plaussible inherent flaws. The argument doesnt mention about the reliability of this f...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 166, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...ion speculated and scavenged for? There could possibly be a new inhabitant to that region, whi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 408, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...h proved inmical to the shrimp species. There is a myriad of plausibilites which have...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 449, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...here is a myriad of plausibilites which havent been refuted by the argument . Such evi...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 484, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...hich havent been refuted by the argument . Such evidences could indubitably streng...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, so, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1751.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 318.0 441.139720559 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.50628930818 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15125068177 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.550314465409 0.468620217663 117% => OK
syllable_count: 556.2 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.2595356297 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.0 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7058823529 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.705882352941 5.70786347227 12% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.186369210405 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0609108438113 0.0743258471296 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0622810015646 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102177454773 0.128457276422 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.054036324261 0.0628817314937 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 12.5979740519 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.64 8.32208582834 116% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.