"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 argument is based on several fallacious assumpions and fails to provide substantive evidences to justify them. Primarily, it makes the unwarranted assumption that what happened to a species of one place is likely to have the same effect of the biodiversity of another place and on a different kind of species, rendering the main conclusion, that not allowing the road to be built will ensure the region's biodiversity, invalid.
First and foremost, the tufted groundhogs and Sea Otters are two very different species. Judging by their name, we can safely assume one of them lives on the ground while the other makes the sea its habitat. Therefore, what happens to one by no way ensures that the same is going to happen to the other. May be, the repeal of the sanctuary in Eastern carpenteria allowed more business corps and industries to be built whose wastes made the nearby waters more polluted and less habitable for the sea otters who had no choice but to either die or migrate to another place. This thing should have no effect on the groundhogs who lives in the ground and possibly far away from the sea shore thus weakening the argument. Had we any information that the groundhogs needed that same sea water for their survival, then maybe we could prove that the repeal of the sanctuary might have endangered the groundhogs. Even then, we'd have to prove that the repeal in another place would cause the waters to be similarly dangerous and thus affect the groundhogs as they did the sea otters.
Secondly, although they are neighbors, West Lansburg and Eastern carpeteria are not identical. Therefore, what happend to one might not mirror what is going to happen to the other. May be West Lansburg is situated in a place which is home to a turbulent waves while Carpenteria is in a place with mostly calm, serene waters. Thus, Lansburg can wash away people's thrown junk or industrial wastes which is not possible in the case of Carpenteria. Thus what will make the repeal of the sanctuary dangerous to carpenteria might just tickle the biodiversity of Lansburg and in some cases have no effect at all. If the argument provided concrete evidence making sure that the two places are extremely similar in its environment as well as its biodiversity, the argument could be further strengthened.
Finally, the information sources on which the main conclusion is based seems spurious. That the groundhogs once numbered in millions is derived from ancient records. Additionally, the sea otter population decline happened in 1978. Now in 2004, 26 years from 1978, the geographical states of the two locations might have dramatically changed. Moreover, The argument never specifies what the relation is between the repeal of the sanctuary and the sea otter decline at all. If it turned out that the sea otter declined due to a contagious disease or had to leave their then habitat due to lack of foods or resources, then the arguments assumption that the sanctuary repeal caused the sea otters to decline would be seriously weakened. This will further make sure that the repeal would have no effect on the fallacious assumption of the decline of the groundhogs and thus further weakening the argument's claims.
In conclusion, the argument makes several unattested assumtions about the cause of the decline, the similarities between two distinctively different places and species of animals and until further evidence is provided, these assumptions severely undermine the argument presented.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: In conclusion, the argument makes several unattested assumtions about the cause of the decline, the similarities between two distinctively different places and species of animals and until further evidence is provided, these assumptions severely undermine the argument presented.
Error: assumtions Suggestion: assumptions
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 582 350
No. of Characters: 2866 1500
No. of Different Words: 247 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.912 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.924 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.662 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 202 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 155 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 75 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.304 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.626 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.826 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.312 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.493 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.093 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 401, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
...ng the road to be built will ensure the regions biodiversity, invalid. First and for...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 446, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ot possible in the case of Carpenteria. Thus what will make the repeal of the sanctu...
^^^^
Line 7, column 625, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...to lack of foods or resources, then the arguments assumption that the sanctuary repeal ca...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, similarly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, while, in conclusion, kind of, as well as, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2923.0 2260.96107784 129% => OK
No of words: 581.0 441.139720559 132% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03098106713 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90957651803 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73939611526 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 258.0 204.123752495 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444061962134 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 909.9 705.55239521 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.0151896927 57.8364921388 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.086956522 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2608695652 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.86956521739 5.70786347227 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0897360246185 0.218282227539 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0343881323759 0.0743258471296 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0434923645622 0.0701772020484 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0432468793569 0.128457276422 34% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0364396587628 0.0628817314937 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 98.500998004 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => 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.