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
The writer recomments that in order to preserve the population of tufted groundhog, the West Lansburg council should not allow for the construction of the roads in the coastal lands of West Lansburg. According to the writer, as the population of sea otter decreased in neighboring Estern Carpenteria due to the coastal road construction, buiding roads in the coastal land of West Lansburg could have a same result leading decline of the population of the tufted groundhogs. However, this recommendation cannot be accepted as it is in that it rests on some assumptions that are not supperted well by warranted evidences.
The first problem with the argument is that the writer of the letter argues that the population of sea otters in Carpenteria declined because of the road construction. There is no evidence to demonstrate that road construction was the defenite cause of the population decline. For instance, it is tenebale to suppose that the water of that area became toxic for a specific priod of time having adverse consequences on the population of sea otters on that coastal region. Also, it is possible to say that the population of the prayers of sea otters had increased before the population decline of the sea otters.Therefore, because there are less prayers, theiThis whole idea also works for the correlation between the population of groundhog and coastal road constructions as well. To clarify, it is possible for the writer to provide supporting evidences to show that road construction was the only and exact cause for the decline of sea otters and groundhog population.
Even assuming that the population of both species declines is attributable to the road construction, there is not sufficent warrented data and proved evidence to show that because of droping the number of sea otters in Carpenteria, groundhog population will decrease as well because of road cunstruction. In fact, the writer of the letter incorrectly assumes that the two location are identical in all other aspects. As a matter of fact, these two location can be geographicaly different from each others. Therefore, if ,for example, there be more food available for groundhogs on that time, or the number of their prayers decline on that specific time of road construction, maybe there would not be a decline in groundhogs populations. To improve his letter, the writer should provide evidences relating to compare other factors contributing to the populations of groundhos and sea otters, and should also provide evidence that even if there are other factors having effects on the population of the two species, at the time of road cunstruction, none of them has effect on their population.
In the final analysis, the writers recommendation to the West lansburg counsil cannot be taken to be correct since he does not provide sufficient amount of evidences to prove his recommendation to be true. The recommendation can only be accepted if he provide compelling evidences regarding all the pointed clarified above.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 548, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... population of the prayers of sea otters had increased before the population decl...
^^
Line 3, column 612, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Therefore
...he population decline of the sea otters.Therefore, because there are less prayers, theiTh...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 641, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun prayers is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...sea otters.Therefore, because there are less prayers, theiThis whole idea also works...
^^^^
Line 5, column 520, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ifferent from each others. Therefore, if ,for example, there be more food availabl...
^^
Line 7, column 28, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...pulation. In the final analysis, the writers recommendation to the West lansburg cou...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 253, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'provides'.
Suggestion: provides
...commendation can only be accepted if he provide compelling evidences regarding all the ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, regarding, so, therefore, well, for example, for instance, in fact, as a matter of fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 58.6224719101 131% => OK
Nominalization: 35.0 12.9106741573 271% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2532.0 2235.4752809 113% => OK
No of words: 489.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17791411043 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05642313687 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 215.323595506 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.425357873211 0.4932671777 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 792.9 704.065955056 113% => 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: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => 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: 32.0 23.0359550562 139% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 78.7721326923 60.3974514979 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 168.8 118.986275619 142% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.6 23.4991977007 139% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.2 5.21951772744 157% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0674220087724 0.243740707755 28% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.030609418439 0.0831039109588 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.031026699765 0.0758088955206 41% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.051922820342 0.150359130593 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0256691874195 0.0667264976115 38% => 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: 19.3 14.1392134831 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.0 48.8420337079 80% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.1743820225 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.36 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 100.480337079 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 11.8971910112 160% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 11.2143820225 132% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.7820224719 161% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.