The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.
"In 1975 a wildlife census found that there were seven species of amphibians in Xanadu National Park, with abundant numbers of each species. However, in 2002 only four species of amphibians were observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. There has been a substantial decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide, and global pollution of water and air is clearly implicated. The decline of amphibians in Xanadu National Park, however, almost certainly has a different cause: in 1975, trout — which are known to eat amphibian eggs — were introduced into the park."
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.
In the letter to the editor, the author argues that the decline in the number of amphibians in Xanadu National Park (XNP, henceforth) is attributed to the introduction trout in 1975. The author has come to this conclusion based on the issues of the characteristic of the trout which eats amphibian eggs. However, this conclusion is relying on three unwarranted assumptions that, if not properly substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument.
First of all, are the wildlife censuses reliable enough? The information given by 1975 census may be too old to fully show the situation of that time. In this period, the survey method may have not been methodolodical enough. Perhaps, there is a possibility that the survey in 1975 underestimated the actual number even though there were four species of amphibian in XNP and the number was much smaller than known. Or, it is possible that the 2002 census result was manipulated or changed for some reasons such as political conflicts. If either of two scenarios is true, then the argument that the introduction of trout is the main reason for the decline of amphibians in XNP does not hold water. Therefore, the author needs to provide a stronger evidence about whether the censuses are well surveyed and preserved.
Secondly, is the decline in the number of amphibians worldwide comparable to that of XNP? Specifically, in XNP, approximately 40 percent (3 out of 7) of amphibian species disappeared from 1975 to 2002. However, by looking over the letter, there is no evidence about how many the number of amphibians declined worldwide and in XNP. Suppose that the number of decline in XNP is smaller than that of worldwide. In this case, the problem in XMP may not be pointed out since the situation is better compared to worldwide. On the other hand, if the number of amphibians declined more than in other places, then we need to focus on additional reasons that caused the rapid transition. Therefore, before the author proposes reliable evidence regarding the exact statistics of decline, we cannot fully evaluate the author’s argument.
Lastly, even if it is true that the census results are reliable and the declines in the numbers of amphibians are similar between worldwide and in XNP, the author still hastily assumes that the background situations were not different between worldwide and XNP. In particular, the author si assuming that trout was introduced in 1975 only in XNP and pollution of air and water is not that severe in XNP. However, this may not necessarily be true. For example, trout may have been introduced in many other places other than in XNP. Then, the introduction of trout cannot be an unique characteristic in XNP at this time. Or, pollution was also severe in XNP like other places. If either of these cases has merits, the conclusion loses its reliability. Thus, the author should suggest more convincing evidence about whether regional environments were similar.
All in all, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide evidence explaining three questions suggested above, then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the argument that the introduction of trout was the main cause of the decline of amphibians from 1975 to 2002.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 573, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...en, the introduction of trout cannot be an unique characteristic in XNP at this ti...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, lastly, look, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, thus, well, for example, in particular, such as, first of all, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.5258426966 169% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 88.0 58.6224719101 150% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2792.0 2235.4752809 125% => OK
No of words: 555.0 442.535393258 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03063063063 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85370353223 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88547518585 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 215.323595506 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.437837837838 0.4932671777 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 859.5 704.065955056 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 12.0 4.99550561798 240% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.7726760155 60.3974514979 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.407407407 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5555555556 23.4991977007 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.62962962963 5.21951772744 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.165998783544 0.243740707755 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0503085714923 0.0831039109588 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0556806293133 0.0758088955206 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103156666252 0.150359130593 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0426557022851 0.0667264976115 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.8420337079 122% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.1639044944 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 100.480337079 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => 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.