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.
In the argument, the author concludes that the population of the western gazelle is nullified due to a high number of predators in the eastern preserve. The author comes to this conclusion based on observations of slightly less rainfall and a high number of predators. However, while the argument might ultimately prove true. It rests on three unwarranted assumptions that drastically hinder the credibility of the statement. If the author wishes to enhance the persuasiveness of the argument, he or she must provide three pieces of evidence.
Firstly, the author assumes that slightly less rainfall is the only difference between Western Palean Preserve and Eastern Palean Preserve. Perhaps, this is not the case, maybe, the terrain is very different and the imported gazelles find it hard to migrate within the park. In addition to that, it might also be that due to slightly lesser rainfalls, the gazelles find it perplexing, as previously the terrain abounded with water sources.
Secondly, the author assumes that the western gazelles have been completely decimated. However, it is possible that they happened to digress toward a more habitable zone in the preserve and the researchers couldn't locate them. Maybe, as they move in larger herds they collectively reside away from predators and thus making it difficult to spot.
Finally, the author assumes that the transport of animals was done properly. Maybe, the gazelles weren't given enough food during transport and were very weak when they were released in the eastern preserve, making it difficult for them to survive. Furthermore, the food sources in the new park might not have been familiar to the imported gazelles, hindering their survivability of them.
In conclusion, the argument is considerably flawed due to several unwarranted assumptions. Before any further inferences are made, if the author wishes to bolster the validity of the argument, he or she must provide three pieces of evidence.
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: 16 15
No. of Words: 315 350
No. of Characters: 1609 1500
No. of Different Words: 159 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.213 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.108 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.719 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 129 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 100 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.688 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.172 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.688 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.342 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.584 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.127 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 207, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...one in the preserve and the researchers couldnt locate them. Maybe, as they move in lar...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 98, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
... was done properly. Maybe, the gazelles werent given enough food during transport and ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, thus, while, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1662.0 2260.96107784 74% => OK
No of words: 313.0 441.139720559 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30990415335 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81145439984 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 204.123752495 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.514376996805 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 516.6 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.8000958135 57.8364921388 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 103.875 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5625 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.6875 5.70786347227 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.136109923984 0.218282227539 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0424532551302 0.0743258471296 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0569919926161 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0717314517903 0.128457276422 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0481260053822 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.82 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.