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 description argues that the incursions of deep-sea-fishermen in the habitat of the Madagascan shrimp, have led to a significant reduction in the species' population. As a result, in a few years the species will become endangered.
This argument lacks concise data. The main point is that the fishermen have induced a reduction in the species' population. This in theory makes sense. There is an assumed cause and effect. However, more data would be required to make an accurate assessment of the population size before the fishermen began their incursions. Perhaps if information was provided of the population sizes before and after the fishermen arrived, this would give a clear idea of the damage they are causing. This would raise other questions, such as who conducted the study? And, what was the methodology used to determine the population size?
The second assumption is that the breeding season will lead to an increase in the shrimp's population. Again, on paper this may make sense. However, with the damage the fishermen have cause to the habitat, there may be secondary consequences. There could also be a decline in the female population. Or the areas where shrimps are born may be destroyed. More background data establishing basic facts of shrimp's reproduction could be provided and may strengthen the argument.
Finally, the description ties the effects of the fishermen's incursions as a trend that will make the Madagascan shrimp an endangered species. This could be true, assuming all the data not provided by the description is correct. But as I've mentioned before, data is needed to have a complete understanding of the situation. If we know with certainty the population size before and after the fishermen's involvement, we could make a graph showing the negative trend. Once the information is presented, perhaps the public may demand the government to maintain limitations on the fishermen.
The description lacks the data to back up its argument that fishermen's incursions into the shrimp's habitat not only have caused a decline in the population's size, but they will make the species endangered. If the researchers provided their data and methodology, then it could be a compelling argument that may make the local government get involved.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 368 350
No. of Characters: 1867 1500
No. of Different Words: 168 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.38 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.073 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.935 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 125 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.331 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.696 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.302 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.481 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.062 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 83, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'shrimps'' or 'shrimp's'?
Suggestion: shrimps'; shrimp's
... season will lead to an increase in the shrimps population. Again, on paper this may ma...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 236, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: I've
...d by the description is correct. But as Ive mentioned before, data is needed to hav...
^^^
Line 9, column 92, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'shrimps'' or 'shrimp's'?
Suggestion: shrimps'; shrimp's
...ent that fishermens incursions into the shrimps habitat not only have caused a decline ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, may, second, so, then, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1913.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 367.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21253405995 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37689890912 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0047763456 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.471389645777 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 599.4 705.55239521 85% => 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: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.7173071209 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.1739130435 119.503703932 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.9565217391 23.324526521 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.30434782609 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.231267860581 0.218282227539 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0738564570505 0.0743258471296 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.113714535168 0.0701772020484 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171830142692 0.128457276422 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.119595473851 0.0628817314937 190% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.3799401198 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.64 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.