The following editorial appeared in the Broomall County Times-Picayune:
"The Gordon Act, which established a wildlife refuge in the Big Dark Swamp, is currently up for reauthorization. The act prohibits the building of roads or cutting of old growth trees in the swamp, though it permits hunting. Many blamed logging activities for the decline of the bird population, especially that of the dappled grackle. The grackle population has continued to decline since the passage of the law, demonstrating that the Gordon Act has not been sufficient to protect the species. Another nearby refuge, the Wayne County Marsh Habitat, bans all mining, logging, and hunting. Wayne County officials have not reported a decline in the grackle population there. This proves that hunting, not logging, was responsible for the population drop in Broomall County. Thus, Broomall County should not reauthorize the Gordon Act unless it is amended to include the same provisions as those in Wayne County."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The author claims that the Gordon Act must not be reauthorized unless amendments are made to mimic the rules of Wayne County. The reason being that hunting is the main culprit for the decline in population of the grackle species. The arguments made are however are stretched and not compelling. There are many avenues to think about and questions to be answered before concluding as the author did. Hence the reasoning is flawed.
The editorial suggests that the grackle population continues to decline after the passage of the Gordon Act and that it did not suffice to protect the species. The basis of the reasoning is however not solid. The decline may not have been due to hunting as the writer suggests as there is no evidence of the same. Other factors may have contributed towards it. The climate may have drastically changed, affecting the living conditions and causing an early death or nearby air and water bodies may have been polluted due to effluents from factories, oil spills or certain noxious elements released by errors. There might even be a carnivore lurking in the vicinity feasting on the grackle. Had the author provided strong evidence that lenient measures led to the population decline, the argument would have been stronger.
An analogy has been made between Big Dark Swamp in Broomall County and Marsh Habitat in Wayne County. Albeit the two are nearby, there is no compelling reason to believe that measures applied in one county will certainly benefit if applied to the other. It may be that mining and hunting are not even possible in Broomall County and hence they could not even be considered as reasons for decline in population. Perhaps the officials made an error in reporting the true population of the grackle in Wayne County, which would completely invalidate this argument. The author could have argued why the two counties are similar and thereby obtained a stronger reasoning.
Furthermore, if the act is not reauthorized as the officials do not wish to amend the act, the predicament may worsen. Organizations may start building roads for convenience reasons and the deforestation involved in the process can highly impact the bird population. Lesser trees mean fewer homes for the aerial animals. Perhaps if the author let the act be reauthorized whether or not an amendment is made, this situation could be avoided.
The argument made is flawed as the the author makes an invalid comparison and deduces a conclusion that cannot be obtained from the stated facts. Therefore, the reasoning can be improved by providing evidence for the analogy and reasoning for why hunting is responsible for the decline in population of birds in Broomall County.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 231, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...e in population of the grackle species. The arguments made are however are stretche...
^^^
Line 1, column 400, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ed before concluding as the author did. Hence the reasoning is flawed. The editori...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 210, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... of the reasoning is however not solid. The decline may not have been due to huntin...
^^^
Line 7, column 372, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
... the author let the act be reauthorized whether or not an amendment is made, this situation co...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 32, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...ided. The argument made is flawed as the the author makes an invalid comparison and ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 32, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...ided. The argument made is flawed as the the author makes an invalid comparison and ...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'therefore']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.24948024948 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.209979209979 0.15541462614 135% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0519750519751 0.0836205057962 62% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0582120582121 0.0520304965353 112% => OK
Pronouns: 0.00831600831601 0.0272364105082 31% => OK
Prepositions: 0.110187110187 0.125424944231 88% => OK
Participles: 0.0810810810811 0.0416121511921 195% => Less participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 2.64617217134 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Infinitives: 0.022869022869 0.026700313972 86% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.130977130977 0.113004496875 116% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.037422037422 0.0255425247493 147% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00831600831601 0.0127820249294 65% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2698.0 2731.13054187 99% => OK
No of words: 448.0 446.07635468 100% => OK
Chars per words: 6.02232142857 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60065326758 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.388392857143 0.378187486979 103% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.310267857143 0.287650121315 108% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.191964285714 0.208842608468 92% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.116071428571 0.135150697306 86% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64617217134 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 207.018472906 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.479910714286 0.469332199767 102% => OK
Word variations: 53.7584271838 52.1807786196 103% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.4782608696 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.8472794613 57.7814097925 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.304347826 141.986410481 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4782608696 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.347826086957 0.724660767414 48% => More Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 3.58251231527 167% => OK
Readability: 50.5050465839 51.9672348444 97% => OK
Elegance: 1.59398496241 1.8405768891 87% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.559102234858 0.441005458295 127% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0995539040614 0.135418324435 74% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0578541812474 0.0829849096947 70% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.565516722774 0.58762219726 96% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.142622455969 0.147661913831 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.253602082153 0.193483328276 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.119261471271 0.0970749176394 123% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.488826810033 0.42659136922 115% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0729030478287 0.0774707102158 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.432636393205 0.312017818177 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0371450681213 0.0698173142475 53% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.33743842365 48% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.82512315271 187% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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 to cover all aspects.