"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 1948. In order to preserve the regions biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment, the West Lansburg council should not allow the road to be built "
A letter to the editor of West Lansburg expressed the concren about maintaing the sactuary staus of the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg which is a habitat of the tufted groundhog. In the letter, the write expressed that the council should not allow developers to built new road along the coastal lines. To support his point writer presented the case Eastern Carpenteria and their declining population of sea otter. But before making any final decision let us check the merit behind the argument presented here as several important assumptions were made here.
Firstly, The case presented here is about the neighboring Eastern Carpenteria but the ecological state of the place is not stated here. It is possible that the, Eastern Carpenteria, which has a similar sanctuary had a biodiversity fairly different from West Lansburg. Thus it is possible that the withdrawal of the sanctuary status, actually led to such activities that adversely affected the sea otter population. That might not the same for West Lansburg. Here the bio diversity as well as the food chain and supply might be different for the tufted groundhog and allowing a road to be built might not affect it at all. More study needs to done before making such decision from this comparision.
Secondly, here the comparison is between a ground based animal tufted,groundhog and a water based animal, sea otter. This comparison is flawed at its very core. It is also possible that the a source of food for the otter might have been affected in the sea. Due to that paucity of food, their population suffered and declined. The correlation was not estalibshed cogently by the writer. For, the case of the grounghog, building a road along the coastline edge might not have that same level of adverse effect on them. The ecosystem needs to be studied further for that region to make this call.
Although, preserving a natural biodiversity is essential to maintain a balanced environment suitable for healthy living but the developement cost should be considered. It might be possible to allow the road to be build without disturbing the habitat and food source of the groundhogs. Also, the cost of the harming the sanctuary partially in comparison to the benefit gained from building the road is something that should be considered. Also the council can suggest the developer an alternative route to build the road without harming the habitat of the groundhogs.
Building a road might better the conditions of communication and transportation, but doing that at the cost of harm to the biodiversity is a serious concern. The developers should get the permission only if it can actually maintain the biodiversity or maintaining them at a defined level healthy level. But before making this decisons more scientific evidence is needed that such development will not harm the habitat and if allowed to build the road the benefit will highly compensate the harm done.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-appears-…
--------------------
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: 24 15
No. of Words: 486 350
No. of Characters: 2399 1500
No. of Different Words: 216 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.695 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.936 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.718 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 169 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.93 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.274 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.482 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 198, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...of the tufted groundhog. In the letter, the write expressed that the council should not a...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 157, Rule ID: THE_PUNCT[1]
Message: Did you forget something after 'the'?
...is not stated here. It is possible that the, Eastern Carpenteria, which has a simila...
^^^^
Line 3, column 269, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ty fairly different from West Lansburg. Thus it is possible that the withdrawal of t...
^^^^
Line 5, column 70, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , groundhog
... is between a ground based animal tufted,groundhog and a water based animal, sea otter. Th...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 187, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'a' is left.
Suggestion: the; a
...its very core. It is also possible that the a source of food for the otter might have...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 439, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...is something that should be considered. Also the council can suggest the developer a...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, thus, well, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2453.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 485.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05773195876 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69283662038 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81955728512 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.455670103093 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 757.8 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More 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: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.5684676167 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.208333333 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2083333333 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.54166666667 5.70786347227 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.12981757978 0.218282227539 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0367957638831 0.0743258471296 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0610590148926 0.0701772020484 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0770486380235 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0685910970539 0.0628817314937 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 98.500998004 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.