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’s argument that the only cause of the virtual elimination of western gazelle is due to the larger number of predators in the eastern preserve is flawed for various reasons. In the argument, the author not only bases his conclusion on vague and unwarranted statements, but also concludes that the only reason for the elimination is due to the larger number of predators without any justification.
First, the author bases his conclusion on vague statements. While he quotes that the eastern preserve has less rainfall, the author does not define the statistical measure of the difference in the rainfall. The assumption is that the exact measure would not provide any extra information in analysing the situation which is incorrect. For example, if the difference in rainfall is considerably less that can affect the gazelle, it is unwise to conclude that the reduction in rainfall is unrelated to the elimination of gazelle. Because the author does not provide any information which can confirm that the decrease in rainfall has not affected gazelle, it is difficult to conclude that the rainfall shortage is unrelated to the elimination.
Second, the author concludes that the only reason for the elimination is due to the larger number of predators without any justification. The author does not try to analyse the real reason for the elimination and concludes that the predators are the only reason which is incorrect. The assumption here is that there are no other reasons for the elimination which is unjustified. For example, the reason for the elimination is not due to the predators, but because of the smaller number of species on which gazelle can feed. Because the author does not cite any information that can directly relate the elimination to the larger number of predators, it is impossible to justify the author’s conclusion.
Third, the author does not consider the other differences in the preserves except for climate which is incorrect. The assumption here is that western preserve is similar to the eastern preserve in all other aspects which is unjustified. For example, if the water reserves in the eastern preserve are far less than that of the western preserve which in turn caused the elimination of gazelle, it is not wise to assume that both the preserves are same and the other differences in the preserves would not have affected the elimination of gazelle. Because the author does not provide any information on the differences in the preserves except for climate, and does not cite any information which can confirm that only climate can affect the elimination of gazelle, it is challenging to conclude that the elimination is the caused solely by the larger number of predators in the eastern preserve.
Fourth, the author bases his conclusion on the number of the predators in eastern preserve without enumerating the number of predators. The assumption here is the exact number of predators would not provide information which can be helpful in analysing the reason for the elimination which is wrong. For example, if the number of predators is only slightly high which can not lead to the elimination of gazelle, it is incorrect to conclude that they are the only reason. Because the author does not provide the statistical measure of the number of predators in eastern preserve, it is impossible to firmly conclude that the larger number of predators has caused the elimination of western gazelle.
In conclusion, Because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, the author fails to make a convincing case that the virtual elimination of western gazelle is due to the larger number of predators in the eastern preserve.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 603 350
No. of Characters: 3028 1500
No. of Different Words: 142 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.955 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.022 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.784 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 239 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 183 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 120 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 86 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.714 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.162 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.524 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.479 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.66 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.26 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 781, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'concluding'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'challenge' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: concluding
...imination of gazelle, it is challenging to conclude that the elimination is the caused sole...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, second, so, third, while, except for, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.6327345309 178% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 32.0 13.6137724551 235% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 55.5748502994 135% => OK
Nominalization: 36.0 16.3942115768 220% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3101.0 2260.96107784 137% => OK
No of words: 603.0 441.139720559 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.14262023217 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9554069778 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90329946671 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 204.123752495 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.257048092869 0.468620217663 55% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 999.9 705.55239521 142% => 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: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 66.0415247643 57.8364921388 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.666666667 119.503703932 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.7142857143 23.324526521 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.09523809524 5.70786347227 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0626129563249 0.218282227539 29% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0278721746934 0.0743258471296 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0415718701482 0.0701772020484 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0534625876571 0.128457276422 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0431540293382 0.0628817314937 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 14.3799401198 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 48.3550499002 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.2 8.32208582834 87% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.