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 passage concludes by implying that Madagascan shrimp will quickly become endangered species with the incursions by deep-sea fisherman into Madagascan shrimps habitat. However, the conclusion drawn is predicated on false assumptions and is insufficiently supported to substantiate. In order to evaluate the argument properly, more evidences are required.
Firstly, the author mentions that deep incursions by deep-sea fisherman into Madagascan shrimps habitat has led to significant reduction in the shrimps population. There is no evidence on the existing population of the Madagascan shrimps in the habitat. Also, the evidence on the number of incursions by the fishermen into the habitat is not provided. If the number of shrimps in the habitat is lesser than that is considered, and perhaps the habitat has fallen prey to not fishermen, but to the other predators in the deep-sea having close surrounding to the shrimps habitat. This particular evidence if not otherwise, weakens the argument of the passage. Without specific evidences on the current population and the other factors influencing the cause of reduction in the species population, the author's argument cannot be properly evaluated.
Moreover, the passage also mentions that, with the breeding season approaching, the number of shrimp should begin to increase. However, the breeding season of the shrimps is not known, with that the passage also doesn't mention about the season when deep-sea fishermen are likely to set sail for predation. If these two season's were completely unrelated to each other, the argument is weakened if not otherwise. Without necessary information on the time period of shrimps breeding, which leads to growth in population, and fishermen's incursion, the author's conclusion, intimately finding the incursions by fishermen as a reason leading to reduction in shrimps habitat, fails to accord in evaluating the argument.
Additionally, the passage also correlates that population, if returned to higher levels than previous levels, which is also not stated in the passage, before the fishing boats arrive, will see the rise in reduction of its habitat, as such a trend is expected to grow over the next several years. Nevertheless, without having enough evidence to back the claim, the passage again asserts on assumptions. With no figures on the number of fishermen or boats inhabiting the shrimps habitat and also the approximation the shrimp population after the breeding season, which increases its population, the author's claim that fishermen are the sole cause for the endangerment of Madagascan shrimps is apocryphal. Therefore, in order to evaluate the author's remark in the passage correlating the fishermen's deeds with endangering shrimps, cannot be properly evaluated.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 426 350
No. of Characters: 2307 1500
No. of Different Words: 180 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.543 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.415 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.867 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 196 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 163 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 73 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.059 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.148 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.706 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.376 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.544 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.092 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 145, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'shrimps'' or 'shrimp's'?
Suggestion: shrimps'; shrimp's
...has led to significant reduction in the shrimps population. There is no evidence on the...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 561, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'shrimps'' or 'shrimp's'?
Suggestion: shrimps'; shrimp's
...eep-sea having close surrounding to the shrimps habitat. This particular evidence if no...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 799, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...eduction in the species population, the authors argument cannot be properly evaluated. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 213, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...s not known, with that the passage also doesnt mention about the season when deep-sea ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 549, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...pulation, and fishermens incursion, the authors conclusion, intimately finding the incu...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 470, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'shrimps'' or 'shrimp's'?
Suggestion: shrimps'; shrimp's
...er of fishermen or boats inhabiting the shrimps habitat and also the approximation the ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, so, therefore
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 11.0 28.8173652695 38% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2360.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 425.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.55294117647 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96726873354 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.454117647059 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 729.9 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.944593144 57.8364921388 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.823529412 119.503703932 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.52941176471 5.70786347227 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.44992948024 0.218282227539 206% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.152976937064 0.0743258471296 206% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.131452295196 0.0701772020484 187% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.287887937448 0.128457276422 224% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0727849216832 0.0628817314937 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 14.3799401198 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.21 12.5979740519 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.