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 arguement aims at empasizing that deep-sea fisherman are responsible in depletion of population of Madagascan shrimp. Although there is some validity to the arguement, it has some amiguity in regards to presenting it's point.
Firstly, the arguement states that even in breading season, the shrimp growth would not be enough to reach to it's previous levels of population. But this has not been backed by any sort of evidence or facts in the above arguement. In order to prove the validity of this point, the arguement needs to present some valid facts about the past growth rate in population of shrimp, along with conditions which actually favour them. Otherwise, it is just another statement that is just being assumed.
Again, the arguement assumes that the trend of decline in population of shrimp will continue for next several years. In order to set a trend, a cornucopia of data and statistics are required, along with rigorous study of these patterns in order to set a pattern. And as stated above, there has been only a recent incursions by deep-sea fisherman. So, it can easily be said that the arguement is quite flawed as they have set a trend either based on less amount or faulty data.
And finally, the arguement does not mention adverse effects of deep-sea fishing done by fisherman in those areas. It could very well be plausible that the fisherman does not hunt for shrimp, but for only a certain sort of dish. Even so, there is a likely chance that the shrimp's population is declining from past years and has nothing to do with the fisherman's existance in those areas. Or it could be that the current atmospherical change such as global warming are responsible for shrimp's declinig population. It could be one or any one of them.
The arguement does make out several valid points, but they are not backed up by any information or any previous studies done in the region. In order to provide a more rigorous arguement, it should be backed up by data, studies and other oddities which could strengthen it even further.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 17 15
No. of Words: 352 350
No. of Characters: 1654 1500
No. of Different Words: 170 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.331 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.699 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.524 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 112 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 83 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.706 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.162 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.529 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.574 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 194, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: regarding; with regard to
... to the arguement, it has some amiguity in regards to presenting its point. Firstly, the a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 272, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'shrimps'' or 'shrimp's'?
Suggestion: shrimps'; shrimp's
...n so, there is a likely chance that the shrimps population is declining from past years...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, firstly, so, then, well, even so, sort of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1699.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 352.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.82670454545 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33147354134 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58500717095 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.494318181818 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 529.2 705.55239521 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.1886636554 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.9411764706 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7058823529 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.76470588235 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.145043687223 0.218282227539 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0525203705022 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0537349564929 0.0701772020484 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0854310836829 0.128457276422 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0381984998749 0.0628817314937 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.73 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.