Three years ago, because of flooding at the Western Palean Wildlife Preserve, 100 lions and 100 western gazelles were moved to the East Palean Preserve, an area that is home to most of the same species that are found in the western preserve, though in larger numbers, and to the eastern gazelle, a close relative of the western gazelle. The only difference in climate is that the eastern preserve typically has slightly less rainfall. Unfortunately, after three years in the eastern preserve, the imported western gazelle population has been virtually eliminated. Since the slight reduction in rainfall cannot be the cause of the virtual elimination of western gazelle, their disappearance must have been caused by the larger number of predators in the eastern preserve.
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 author asserts that the virtual elimination of imported western gazelle is caused by the larger number of predators in the eastern preserve than in western preserve. Though the author mentions that there is a difference in the amount of rainfall between western preserve and eastern preserve, he or she does not consider the fact as a main cause of this phenomenon. However, the claim is unpersuasive to me since it relies on multiple weak assumptions that are defective in a logical aspect.
First, the author hastily assumes that the slight reduction of rainfall in the eastern preserve cannot be the cause of elimination. However, the author overlooks the potential that the slight difference has on ecology and fails to provide clear evidence why the reduction of rainfall is irrelevant to the disappearance of western gazelles. It is possible that the less amount of rain caused lack of foods for the gazelles. Furthermore, the imported gazelles could have competed against eastern gazelles for the limited amount of foods. To bolster the claim, the author must provide data that the slight reduction of rainfall did not impact the amount of food that the western gazelles needed.
Second, the author fails to provide information about the predators in the eastern preserve. As it stands, we do not have any information about what predators live in western and easter preserves. Furthermore, the fact there are more predators in the eastern preserve than western preserve necessarily proves that the cause of elimination is due to predators. It is possible that there are more places to hide from the predators in the eastern preserve or the predators in the eastern preserve could not efficiently hunt western gazeels because the predators are not used to western gazelle’s behaviors, which are new to the predators. Thus, the author must provide further information about the predators and data that they can efficiently hunt western gazelles in the eastern preserve.
Third, the author overlooks the fact that there could be more factors that could have contributed to the elimination of the gazelles, other than the existence of predators. Admittedly, presence of predators can be a factor but can only be a piece of puzzles.Though the author mentioned about the difference in climate, we have no information about what geographical traits the eastern preserve has. If the eastern preserve had less water ponds or have plants that are toxic to western gazelles, those could have contributed to the sudden reduction of western gazelles. To better assess the argument, we must hear about geographical traits of western and eastern preserves and compare what factors had effects on survival of western gazelles.
To conclude, the argument is still unjustified due to poor assumptions and lack of adequate evidences. The author must provide more information about the predators, how the rainfall does not impact the ecology of western gazelles and geographical characteristics of both western and eastern preserves. Without the additional information indicated above, the argument is still vulnerable to criticism.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not exactly
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 499 350
No. of Characters: 2581 1500
No. of Different Words: 177 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.726 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.172 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.74 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 209 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 168 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.95 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.285 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.406 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.613 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.198 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 371, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...act as a main cause of this phenomenon. However, the claim is unpersuasive to me...
^^
Line 7, column 259, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Though
...ctor but can only be a piece of puzzles.Though the author mentioned about the differen...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, look, second, still, third, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2643.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 498.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30722891566 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72397222731 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87605794922 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.371485943775 0.468620217663 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 822.6 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.7160688309 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.15 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.5 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => 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: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.164749839447 0.218282227539 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0658882478256 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0592629511146 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11234019463 0.128457276422 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0469065919136 0.0628817314937 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.52 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.