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."
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 19.6327345309 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2219.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 382.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.80890052356 5.12650576532 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42095241839 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05075820527 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565445026178 0.468620217663 121% => OK
syllable_count: 672.3 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 4.96107784431 282% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.3990740669 57.8364921388 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.6875 119.503703932 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.875 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.375 5.70786347227 147% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.12411798999 0.218282227539 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0420645601028 0.0743258471296 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0621041327622 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0722774918965 0.128457276422 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.053721577377 0.0628817314937 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.9 14.3799401198 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 48.3550499002 65% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.71 12.5979740519 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.74 8.32208582834 117% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 98.500998004 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 12.3882235529 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.33 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.