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 Madagascan shrimp will quickly become endangered due to deep-sea fishermen does not contain enough detail for the logic used to be considered concrete. There are also multiple unfounded assumptions that can not be verified based off of the passage alone.
The most prominent downfall of the above argument is the vagueness of the language and points put forward. If indeed there has been a significant reduction in the shrimp's population there is no background to what this actually means. For instance, if the population was in the tens of millions and was reduced by 500,000, this is indeed a large number that has been lost; however, as a fraction of the total population, it has not changed by a large percentage. Therefore, to accurately portray the change in population there must be specific numbers given for the percentage change in the total population. Further vague language is used when describing that the population "should" increase due to breeding and that the population "should not" return to normal levels. These statements contain no hard evidence as to what will happen. Thus, one is simply accepting the author's word and not basing their judgement on actual evidence and studies. To combat this, there should be mention of the typical increase in population in breeding and at which rate the population increases. Yet, even with this further information, extrapolating that this will occur year after year is not a guaranteed and so how the population is expected to change is difficult to quantify.
A major assumption that the argument in the passage is based upon is that the decrease in Shrimp population is solely due to the deep-sea fishermen. Although it is likely that the fishermen have contributed to a decrease there are many other factors that could be at play. The ocean temperature could be changing due to a changing climate or there may be more pollution in the water as Madagascar develops further. This would lead to the habitat that the shrimp need to survive and procreate being destroyed and stop the population from increasing. Thus, further in-depth research is required to document the effects of other factors and not just the fishermen. Adding this information to the argument would require additional cost and time, which may not be possible depending on who is undertaking the research into the shrimp. It should also be noted that even with additional studies, the subject matter is very complex and the exact factors involved may be indiscernible.
The decrease in Madagascan shrimp could be related to the deep-sea fishermen who have recently begun fishing in their habitat. Nevertheless, the given argument gives vague points and logical reasoning as to why this is the case. The passage also relies on the assumption that the fishermen are the only negative impact on the shrimp's habitat. Thus, the author must provide accurate details on the population changes and trends. However, even with these, it is difficult to know how accurate the numbers are. It is also necessary to find out if there are other factors at play.
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: 24 15
No. of Words: 514 350
No. of Characters: 2542 1500
No. of Different Words: 233 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.761 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.946 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.656 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 188 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 152 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.417 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.448 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.282 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.442 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.055 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 108, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...of the language and points put forward. If indeed there has been a significant red...
^^
Line 3, column 164, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'shrimps'' or 'shrimp's'?
Suggestion: shrimps'; shrimp's
...has been a significant reduction in the shrimps population there is no background to wh...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1000, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'mentioned'?
Suggestion: mentioned
...tudies. To combat this, there should be mention of the typical increase in population i...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 150, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Although” 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.
...s solely due to the deep-sea fishermen. Although it is likely that the fishermen have co...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 327, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'shrimps'' or 'shrimp's'?
Suggestion: shrimps'; shrimp's
...men are the only negative impact on the shrimps habitat. Thus, the author must provide ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, therefore, thus, as to, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 39.0 19.6327345309 199% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2616.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 514.0 441.139720559 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08949416342 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.76146701107 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7999968638 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.459143968872 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 819.0 705.55239521 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => 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: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.4023834619 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.0 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4166666667 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.875 5.70786347227 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => 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: 0.18476372992 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0556353028026 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0634166036071 0.0701772020484 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127268063521 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0407012438334 0.0628817314937 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.