.
In the argument the comparison between two sanctuaries are taken into
consideration, one in Eastern Carpentaria and other in West Lansburg.
This comparison might not hold good always, due to the change in
geographial locations.<br><br>The argumet has made two assumptions, one
of which is repealing a sanctuary is reason for the decline in sea otter
population in the sanctuary in Eastern carpentaria, if same is followed
for the sanctuary in West Lansburg decline in the popluation of tufted
groundhog is iminent. It can be noticed that the habitats for the
animals is different in both the places, the food availabilty, existance
of predators, shelter, many other reasons would have a role to play in
the decline of the population of sea otters, it is not necessarily due
to the human intervention. This might not be the case for the sanctuary
in West Lansburg, the habitat in this area might be the most conducive
to the groundhogs and human intervention might not affect the existing
conditons.<br><br>Also, two different years are taken for the
comparison. It is not likely that the conditions in 2004 is same as it
was in 1978, which saw the decline in population of sea otters. In 1978,
repealing the sactuary status might have invited more poachers and
hunters which led to the decline of sea otters. Allowing the
construction of an access road is not same as repealing the sanctuary
status. Although, chances are there that the moving vehicles on the
access road lead to killing the groundhogs, which results in decline of
population, if this taken for deliberation then access road will be a
bad idea.<br><br>Building an access road is not the only aspect which
hinders the attempt of conserving the biodiversity others attributes
should also be taken into consideration.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 70, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n between two sanctuaries are taken into consideration, one in Eastern Carpentari...
^^^
Line 3, column 65, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t hold good always, due to the change in geographial locations.
The argume...
^^^
Line 4, column 72, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he argumet has made two assumptions, one of which is repealing a sanctuary is rea...
^^^
Line 7, column 72, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...burg decline in the popluation of tufted groundhog is iminent. It can be noticed ...
^^^
Line 8, column 66, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...can be noticed that the habitats for the animals is different in both the places,...
^^^
Line 10, column 72, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...her reasons would have a role to play in the decline of the population of sea ott...
^^^
Line 11, column 71, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...of sea otters, it is not necessarily due to the human intervention. This might no...
^^^
Line 12, column 72, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... might not be the case for the sanctuary in West Lansburg, the habitat in this ar...
^^^
Line 13, column 71, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...in this area might be the most conducive to the groundhogs and human intervention...
^^^
Line 14, column 71, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tervention might not affect the existing conditons.
Also, two different ye...
^^^
Line 15, column 62, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...o, two different years are taken for the comparison. It is not likely that the co...
^^^
Line 16, column 71, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hat the conditions in 2004 is same as it was in 1978, which saw the decline in po...
^^^
Line 18, column 68, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tus might have invited more poachers and hunters which led to the decline of sea ...
^^^
Line 19, column 61, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the decline of sea otters. Allowing the construction of an access road is not sa...
^^^
Line 20, column 70, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d is not same as repealing the sanctuary status. Although, chances are there that...
^^^
Line 21, column 68, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...re there that the moving vehicles on the access road lead to killing the groundho...
^^^
Line 22, column 72, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... groundhogs, which results in decline of population, if this taken for deliberati...
^^^
Line 23, column 70, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... deliberation then access road will be a bad idea.
Building an access road...
^^^
Line 24, column 70, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...access road is not the only aspect which hinders the attempt of conserving the bi...
^^^
Line 25, column 69, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rving the biodiversity others attributes should also be taken into consideration....
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 14.8657303371 20% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 33.0505617978 33% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 58.6224719101 65% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1545.0 2235.4752809 69% => OK
No of words: 294.0 442.535393258 66% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25510204082 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.55969084622 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.35582444182 2.79657885939 120% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 215.323595506 65% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.47619047619 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 459.0 704.065955056 65% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 20.2370786517 40% => 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: 36.0 23.0359550562 156% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 113.617505253 60.3974514979 188% => OK
Chars per sentence: 193.125 118.986275619 162% => OK
Words per sentence: 36.75 23.4991977007 156% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.875 5.21951772744 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 26.0 4.97078651685 523% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 20.0 7.80617977528 256% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 10.2758426966 10% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.243740707755 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0831039109588 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0758088955206 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.150359130593 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0667264976115 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 21.7 14.1392134831 153% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.94 48.8420337079 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.3 12.1743820225 142% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.82 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.5 8.38706741573 113% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 100.480337079 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 11.8971910112 160% => OK
gunning_fog: 16.4 11.2143820225 146% => OK
text_standard: 22.0 11.7820224719 187% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.