GRE Argument:
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 authors argument that the development of an access road along the edge of the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg will affect the regions biodiversity and reduce the population of the tufted groundhog due to the fact that the repeal of the the sanctuary status of the neighboring Eastern Carpenteria affected the sea otter population is flawed. In the argument, the author supports his/her view by falling to a cause affect fallacy without substantial evidence to compare both the scenarios. The author also does not provide any statistical support to his/her claim.
Firstly, the author does not mention the reason due to which the tufted groundhog population that was once numbered in millions reduced drastically that there was a need to establish a wildlife sanctuary. Had the author provided the facts and statistics needed to understand the reason of the population of the tufted groundhog, then it would be easier to understand whether the development of an access road would affect the groundhog population.
Secondly, the author does not support the claim that the wildlife sanctuary has ensured the preservation of the animal. Statistical evidence corroborating that there has been an increase or at least a stabilization of the population of the groundhog would have further bolstered the fact that the wildlife sanctuary is needed to ensure a healthy environment for the groundhog.
Thirdly, the author does not provide an appropriate comparison of the situation of the tufted groundhog and the sea otter. It is not mentioned why the status of the wildlife sanctuary in the Eastern Carpenteria has been repealed. Had the author mentioned that the reason was the development of an access road, then the reader could be able to make a proper comparison.
The argument by the author can be further strengthened by the addition of statistical facts to the claims made in the letter. Also a better comparison of the scenarios of the tufted groundhog and the sea otter would better help in understanding the affects of removal of the sanctuary status. In its current form, the argument is flawed.
argument 1 -- where did you get this? ' the tufted groundhog population that was once numbered in millions reduced drastically that there was a need to establish a wildlife sanctuary'?
suggested:
Ancient records are suggesting that at one instance there were millions of tufted groundhogs. The argument lacks the current status of the tufted groundhogs. The probability of them being endangered even before the wetland were termed as a sanctuary in 2004 might be high. Thus, there is not particular basis on which the local developments are being denied a permission for building the road.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not OK.
suggested:
The author mentions that Eastern Carpenteria which had a similar sanctuary, has seen its sea otter population decline since the repeal of its sanctuary status in 1978. But that is a high possibility that the decline in the number of sea otter was due to other reasons namely global warming. There is also a possibility that changes in sea temperature has lead to the decline in population.
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: ? out of 6
Category: ? Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 346 350
No. of Characters: 1735 1500
No. of Different Words: 139 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.313 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.014 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.841 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 138 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 98 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.615 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.518 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.615 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.425 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.644 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.136 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5