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 has failed to convince us that the deer population decline is due to the coincidence between the reports and the global warming trades. The argument, as it stands, is based on questionable assumptions and a faulty line of reasoning, a fact that renders it over-simplistic and unconvincing.
First of all, the author states that due to the reports from local hunters it is concluded that the deer population is declining. At first, it may sound convincing, but when viewed holistically it is not. There may have been other factors that could play a role. The author does not mention the soundness and legitimacy of the reports. In addition, there is no detail regarding the number of hunters who could agree on such a phenomenon. What if the hunters were not citing Arctic deer, and instead were just mentioning the deer population in general? What if the hunters' report is not reliable? Furthermore, there is no indication about the date, and the time of the report. What if the hunters themselves where overhunting deer? To scrutinize, one should be able to justify a claim by providing enough evidence and information to make it cogent and convincing. If the author had elucidated more and provided enough scrutiny, the argument would have been strengthened.
Next, the author mentions the global warming trend that could have caused the deer population decline. However, the author does not provide further evidence to justify his/her claim. Chances are, that global warming trend was not affecting the islands mentioned in the argument. Furthermore, what if the global warming did not have any detrimental effect on the ice islands in Canada. Not to mention the fact that the author says that deer’s habitat is cold areas “at least some of the year”. Not only does not the author provide further scrutiny about this term and the idea that deer population may not have been susceptible to global warming, but also nebulously assumes that the deer population, contradictory to the conclusion, are living on cold icy island most of the year. Obvious enough to conclude that the author had not provided justifiable evidence and more detail to support his/her claim. As a result, if the argument had included the items discussed the coherence of the argument would have strengthened.
Last, the author bases his conclusion on two facts that coincide. To elaborate on, a big leap of faith is based on a paucity of evidence. Consequently, a flimsy cause and effect relationship is drawn. The author does not provide further information about the two coinciding issues. What if the deer population changed their migration pattern due to the fact that they have been overhunted by hunters? What if they had changed their patterns because of an increased human activity such as road-construction, building sites and so forth? If the author had included the items mentioned, the soundness of the argument would have been strengthened.
To conclude, based on questionable assumptions and poor evidence, the arguer’s reasoning does not provide concrete support for his/her conclusion. If the argument had included the items discussed, it would have been more cogent and thorough.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 485, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...;s habitat is cold areas 'at least some of the year'. Not only does not the autho...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, so, then, at least, in addition, in general, such as, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 30.0 16.3942115768 183% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2708.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 530.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10943396226 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79809637944 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84272694356 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.447169811321 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 829.8 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Interrogative: 6.0 0.471057884232 1274% => Less interrogative sentences wanted.
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.9772782142 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.2666666667 119.503703932 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6666666667 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.1 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.15796002315 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0394937164239 0.0743258471296 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0475236895427 0.0701772020484 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0780408081712 0.128457276422 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0565133803655 0.0628817314937 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.06 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 98.500998004 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.