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 conclusion of the argument is too much strong with respect to the amount of information and evidence provided. The declaration of wildlife has a great impact on the extinct and extant animals.
It is not that there are no other sanctuaries which has allowed roads and public to pass on the borders. There are many sanctuaries worldwide which have allowed traffic to pass through them. They are able to control the speed of the traffic so that no animal gets killed by vehicles. Even heavy vehicles are allowed to pass through the sanctuaries with a caution that they have completed the pollution and noise control of their bogies.
How did millions of tufted groundhog survived till 2004 when there are humans who can harm them? Only declaring a wildlife century does not do the entire job. There have been many other efforts to preserve the species of importance.
The Neighboring Earstern Carpenteria had a similar sanctuary is vague. In what terms the author is measuring the similarity is not provided in the argument. It might had happened that the decline of population is due to weather, environmental changes because of global warming, etc. How much population declined is also not mentioned in the argument.
The repealing of sanctuary status of Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria could also have happened because of some other reasons. The author does not mention about how a sanctuary is qualified to leave its status.
In conclusion, the argument is too much strong and cannot be easily derived from the information provided. If all of the above knowledge would have been given, one could be able to decide that the road should be allowed to build or not.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 281 350
No. of Characters: 1363 1500
No. of Different Words: 150 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.094 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.851 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.591 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 99 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 78 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 49 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 30 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.562 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.556 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.375 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.63 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.087 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 11, column 111, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...rived from the information provided. If all of the above knowledge would have been given, ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 138, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had been'?
Suggestion: had been
...provided. If all of the above knowledge would have been given, one could be able to decide that...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, so, in conclusion, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1403.0 2260.96107784 62% => OK
No of words: 281.0 441.139720559 64% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.99288256228 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09427095027 4.56307096286 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64929828893 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.540925266904 0.468620217663 115% => OK
syllable_count: 434.7 705.55239521 62% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 24.5521829698 57.8364921388 42% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 82.5294117647 119.503703932 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5294117647 23.324526521 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.58823529412 5.70786347227 45% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => 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: 0.105297675042 0.218282227539 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0324380056307 0.0743258471296 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.037350144232 0.0701772020484 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0524567632937 0.128457276422 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0510694414541 0.0628817314937 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.3 14.3799401198 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 48.3550499002 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 12.197005988 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 98.500998004 70% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.