The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News:
"The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they were declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2004, development along the coastal wetlands has been prohibited. Now local development interests are lobbying for the West Lansburg council to allow an access road to be built along the edge of wetlands. Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria, which had a similar sanctuary, has seen its sea otter population decline since the repeal of its sanctuary status in 1978. In order to preserve the region's biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment, the West Lansburg council should not allow the road to be built."
The following argument recommends that making a road along the edge of the wetlands will harm the biodiversity and environmental health of Lansburg sanctuary. This argument is flawed because it is based on many unwarranted assumption. Primarily the argument is based on the underlying assumption that the development of road along the edge of wetlands will have a direct impact on the sanctuary. It also has flaws such as statistical flaw and unjustified comparisons.
Firstly the argument assumes that decline in sea otter population due to repeal in the sanctuary status of Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria
will repeat itself in the case of making the road along the wetland . As it will hamper the biodiversity of Lansburg sanctuary, but the comparison being made here between the scenarios is not justified. There is no information given by the argument to support the claim that making a road on the edge will have drastic impact equivalent to repealing a sanctuary status. If the argument would have given the evidence to support the fact such as distance of the place where the road is being constructed the argument would have been stronger. Missing information such as the extent pf impact of construction work on the wildlife in Lansburg sanctuary make the argument unconvincing.
Meanwhile, even if we consider that a similar impact will be there due to both of these scenarios the argument leaves many other questions unanswered. The argument makes a comparison between the species such as tufted groundhog found in Lansburg sanctuary with sea otter found in sanctuary status of Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria but no information has been provided in the argument to corroborate this comparison. If the argument had given the chracterstics of both of these species or the similarity in their features of life style we would have been in better position to assess the argument.
Furthermore, the argument also uses vague numbers with no underlying base line for comparison. Such as the argument mentions that Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions, but we do not know anything about their current population or reason for the decrease in the population, if it happened. Insofar, the argument lacks the recent numbers to support the claim that the groundhog population even facing a crisis. In absence of this data the argument does not have a firm grounding.
Therefore, from the examples given above we can conclude that in absence of data and information to support the unjustified comparisons made by the argument between the two sanctuaries, and the species inhabited in these sanctuaries, the argument remains unconvincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 34, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ns. Firstly the argument assumes that decline in sea otter population due to r...
^^
Line 3, column 140, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tatus of Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria will repeat itself in the case of makin...
^^^
Line 4, column 19, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...Eastern Carpenteria will repeat itself in the case of making the road along the...
^^
Line 4, column 69, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ase of making the road along the wetland . As it will hamper the biodiversity of L...
^^
Line 4, column 388, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had given'?
Suggestion: had given
...ing a sanctuary status. If the argument would have given the evidence to support the fact such a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 631, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... of construction work on the wildlife in Lansburg sanctuary make the argument unc...
^^
Line 6, column 211, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...a comparison between the species such as tufted groundhog found in Lansburg sanct...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, if, so, therefore, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 36.0 16.3942115768 220% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2262.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 431.0 441.139720559 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24825986079 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55637350225 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96572498579 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.424593967517 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 704.7 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.717794089 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.058823529 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3529411765 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.29411764706 5.70786347227 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.098053651254 0.218282227539 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0395263088751 0.0743258471296 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0573075578191 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0530828793308 0.128457276422 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0589337047342 0.0628817314937 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.