Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic regions. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of the year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the purported decline in deer populations is the result of the deer's being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The author of the argument is concerned with diminishing population of arctic deer and believes that decline is caused by global warming. Though global warming does affect our planet and all living species, one cannot blame environmental changes for all the changes around the globe. If additional information provided, the case of arctic deer population decrease could be qualified either because of human adverse activities or, indeed, consequences of climate changes, or not qualified as a case at all.
To begin with, lets evaluate human factor involved in building the case. First, the report that brings the concern was provided by hunters. To evaluate the trustworthiness of the report, one should ask about the background used for that report: what kind of survey was done by hunters to estimate the population, how the survey was conducted, did hunters conduct the survey independently of hunting activities or simultaneously? In other words, scope, method and sample groups are just few off-hand things to know for estimation of survey validity.
Though even without sufficiently conducted survey, hunters could observe less arctic deer but not because population decreased on its own, without interference of human beings. Think about increased number of hunters that caused decrease of deer due to their hunting activities. Or, the number of hunters remained the same, but years of practice in killing animals made them more effective in shooting. Hopefully, licenses limiting hunting activities are valid at the territory and protects animals. To eliminate hunting activities as a reason of the decrease, the increase in number of hunters should be checked, as well as possible changes in regulations of hunting activities.
Though human activities may induce almost extinction of some species, global warming may do so too. That is quite possible that because stags could not migrate from island to island due to unfrozen sea they got stuck at some island and starved. If proof for that the assumption is found, that would strengthen the key implication of the argument – the population decreased due to effects of the global warming. But on the other hand, global warming could simplify life of arctic deer by creating a habitat on one of islands that is cold enough for deer to live and propagate but not too cold for forage to grow. In this case, the argument will be weakened. The population did not decrease, it just migrated.
And finale, the saddest of possible outcomes, arctic deer did not migrate and was not shoot by hunters, but indeed failed to move to another island because sea waters did not freeze and starved to death because of grass scarcity. That outcome, though not substantiated, fully complies author’s point of view. But to obtain evidence to support that is relatively easy – interview the hunters. Hunters would see and remember cadaverous animals for sure. Sight of starving living being is hard to forget.
To sum up, without extra data proving that animals did not migrate but indeed decreased in number due to environmental shifts, the argument cannot be reaffirmed.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 549, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...know for estimation of survey validity. Though even without sufficiently conduct...
^^^
Line 5, column 87, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'shot'.
Suggestion: shot
...arctic deer did not migrate and was not shoot by hunters, but indeed failed to move t...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, may, so, then, well, kind of, as well as, in other words, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 33.0505617978 57% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2625.0 2235.4752809 117% => OK
No of words: 505.0 442.535393258 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19801980198 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74048574033 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72769240428 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49702970297 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 806.4 704.065955056 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.0942857071 60.3974514979 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.375 118.986275619 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0416666667 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.875 5.21951772744 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.194405878017 0.243740707755 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0469995412806 0.0831039109588 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.071768920207 0.0758088955206 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0895435317697 0.150359130593 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0875189102409 0.0667264976115 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.1392134831 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 100.480337079 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.