The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they were declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2004, development along the coastal wetlands has been prohibited. Now local development interests are lobbying for the West Lansburg council to allow an access road to be built along the edge of wetlands. Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria, which had a similar sanctuary, has seen its sea otter population decline since the repeal of its sanctuary status in 1978. In order to preserve the region's biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment, the West Lansburg council should not allow the road to be built."
The above argument mentions that the endemic species of West Lansburg namely called tufter groundhog lives on the coastal wetlands there. In 2004, it was declared as a wildlife sanctuary so development along the coastal wetlands was prohibited. Despite the prohibition of development, the local development interests are lobbying to allow access roads to be built across the periphery of the wetlands. But in the letter to the editor it says that in order to preserve the biodiversity and ecology the permission should not be granted as it would impede the healthy and verdant sanctuary. But the letter has many flaws and certainly depends on many assumptions which are meretricious.
The letter states that Neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria is a similar sanctuary and it has seen the same situation where it ratified the local development to build roads along the periphery and as result they faced decline of the native sea otter population. But here clearly an assumption is made that as Eastern Carpenteria suffered from decline of sea otter population there would also be the same impact on the West Lansburg if they would give the permission to build roads surrounding the sanctuary. Here it is not necessary that the sea otter population have depleted because of the manufacturing of roads. There can be a myriad of reasons behind it such as native people living around have started eating those due to the health benefits and as a reason the decrease of the population took place.
Secondly there maybe a possibility that the Neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria sanctuary have seen the decrease in population because of the squalid atmosphere present around sanctuary. The sea otter populations may have not been able to survive such filthy surroundings and bad oxygen and as a result of this, they have deteriorated in their population. So, there cannot be direct implication that as conditions on building roads across this sanctuary can also have the same deleterious effects in the West Lansburg sanctuary.
Thirdly, it is mentioned that West Lansburg should brusquely deny the offer of the local developments to ensure the ecology. But here it has been presumed that the development persons would have parlous motives and that would degenerate the sanctuary. It is certainly flawed as there maybe a situation where they are optimistic about the ecology too and they are developing the roads around the periphery to genuinely help in overall productivity of the sanctuary. There can also be a motive that they want to build roads around so that more humans can become aware of this sanctuary and its existence. Because as more people would be conversant it would augment the ecology and such biodiversity as people would protect it by not cutting it down.
So, the letter mentioned here totally depends on assumptions and can be reframed by removing the direct implied relations with the Neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria sanctuary. Also, a detailed discussion with the local development agents can help enhance the understanding of the motives and reasons of why to construct such roads. Lastly, a document can also be created between the local development agents and the people who manage the sanctuary that there would be no destruction of the ecology and biodiversity on building roads around the sanctuary. This will also help to build cordial relationship between them.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 549 350
No. of Characters: 2801 1500
No. of Different Words: 220 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.841 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.102 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.805 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 207 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 158 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 109 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 82 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.143 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.248 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.533 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ny assumptions which are meretricious. The letter states that Neighbouring East...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ecrease of the population took place. Secondly there maybe a possibility that ...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ffects in the West Lansburg sanctuary. Thirdly, it is mentioned that West Lansb...
^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...uld protect it by not cutting it down. So, the letter mentioned here totally de...
^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ild cordial relationship between them.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2840.0 2260.96107784 126% => OK
No of words: 549.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17304189435 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84053189512 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85082664922 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.402550091075 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 900.0 705.55239521 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.2087768752 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.238095238 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1428571429 23.324526521 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.09523809524 5.70786347227 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.143397079916 0.218282227539 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0522682325309 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0753592500922 0.0701772020484 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0938898727308 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.074253321625 0.0628817314937 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.