The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations, so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment.
Statement adverts about a sanctuary of tufted groundhog which lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg, furthermore, they give example of Eastern Carpentreria in order to suggest that they should not allow these road on the edge of wetlands in the aim of preventing biodiversity and ecological equilibrium. However, statement conveys distorted facts by strategically supported examples, present claims without further information or investigation and end up poor reasoning and unconvincing statement due to these insufficiences. Accordingly, they should first stregthen their argument before taking any further action admittedly.
Firstly, they fail to provide a detailed anaylsis about the case in 2004, hence, without these persuasive details, they seem in the attitude of manipulating facts in order to convince people. For instance, a meticulous examination reveal different cause than these westland, it should be granted that this sanctuary is surely devoted to these roads. Otherwise, they seem as wishful thinkings in which they believe and spread. Therefore, they should assess and examine attentively in order to provide granted results.
Secondly, they falsely assume that these two situation of West Lansburg and Eastern Carpenteria are same in the manner so that same result will be observed after implementing these roads. However, statement has not revealed necessary facts and reasons behind of Eastern Carpenteria, following this, this seems as poor connection between events. For instance, there could have been an occasion of contagious disease in Eastern which result in extinction instead of consequence of wetlands. The statement would be more convincing if they could have included additional details about Easter Carpeneria.
Lastly, they claim that biodiversity and health environment will be ensured with cancellation of these roads. Nonetheless, there is no additional information of the current situation of this environment, correspondingly, they convey poor reasoning and beliefs about related environment. To ameliorate their statement, they should conduct an detailed environmental analysis on target place in the aim of protecting biodiversity and scaning possible threats. If evidences point out that implications of this road is only and foremost threats to this place, this would clear all doubts in minds.
Ultimately, all logical fallacies, poor reasonings and misjudgments are revealed above, in the light of these, they should follow these steps and provide necessary evidence and reports in order to have convincing and trustful statement.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 115, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hence, without these persuasive details, they seem in the attitude of manipulatin...
^^
Line 7, column 339, 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
...te their statement, they should conduct an detailed environmental analysis on targ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, lastly, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.5258426966 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 58.6224719101 99% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 12.9106741573 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2221.0 2235.4752809 99% => OK
No of words: 382.0 442.535393258 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.81413612565 5.05705443957 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42095241839 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05075820527 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 215.323595506 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565445026178 0.4932671777 115% => OK
syllable_count: 672.3 704.065955056 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 6.24550561798 224% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => 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: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.3990740669 60.3974514979 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.8125 118.986275619 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.875 23.4991977007 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.375 5.21951772744 160% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.035921225966 0.243740707755 15% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0159622073487 0.0831039109588 19% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0216357368834 0.0758088955206 29% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0212012385864 0.150359130593 14% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.020269830444 0.0667264976115 30% => 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: 17.9 14.1392134831 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 48.8420337079 64% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.71 12.1639044944 137% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.74 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 100.480337079 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.8971910112 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.