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 is flawed for a number of reasons. Firstly, it makes an unwarranted claim that dep-sea fishermen are the sole culprit for the reduction in the species population.
In our world a reduction in the population of a species may occur for various reasons. In this argument it is stated that deep-sea fishermen are the cause of significant reduction in the shrimp population but against this point no proof is placed. It may happen that a bacterial infection has spread among the secies of shrimp and the disease has become epidemic and the shrimp population are not resistant to this bacterial threat and are dying in large number. It may also happen that the food on which the shrimp poplation live has become scare and becasue of this shrimp population are reducing. However, it is also possible that the shrimp poulation are now competing with a new species in their teritory for food and hence are suffering. Had the argument placed a proof about the claim that the deep-sea fishermen are the real casue of this reduction of shrimp population and all others factors on which shrimp ouplation are unchanged, only then we can accept the claim.
However, if the argument explicitly provides evidence about the claim it makes about the culpability of the fishermen, even then the argument needs to clear its point about the term significant reduction. For example, if the rate at which the shrimp populationn is reducing is massive but it is not so threatening because of the large number of shrimp population at that place. Had the argument discussed about the present population and the rate at which population is decreasing at that time the argument would have been more valid.
Again the argument assumes that the production rate is not going to compensate the reduction and the shrimp species is going to be endangered species. But it may happen that the environment in which the shrimp species lives will become more conducive for their living-the food supply may increase, the temperature may become more convenient as well as the salinity of water and these favorable facts will increasea the mating and production rate which is much greater than the argument predicts resulting an increase the shirmp population.
The argument makes some unwarranted assumption and hence not valid.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, so, then, well, for example, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 35.0 16.3942115768 213% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1924.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 384.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01041666667 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4267276788 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64566928625 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 204.123752495 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.424479166667 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
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: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 80.6234634405 57.8364921388 139% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.428571429 119.503703932 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.4285714286 23.324526521 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 5.70786347227 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => 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: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.210072229914 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0862380599041 0.0743258471296 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.049290769721 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107063784373 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0724194048578 0.0628817314937 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.