Recent incursions by deep-sea fishermen into the habitat of the Madagascan shrimp have led to a significant reduction in the species population. With the breeding season fast approaching, the number of shrimp should soon begin to increase. Nonetheless, the population should not return to the levels before the fishing boats arrived. Because this trend is expected to continue over the next several years, the Madagascan shrimp will quickly become an endangered species.
The argument presented, relating the incursions by deap-sea fishermen to the decline of shrimps in the region, is flawed due to a number of reasons. Firstly, the writer claims that coming of deap-sea fishermen in the area have led to a decline in population of a certain species. The passage does not mention any specific figures or data collected that compares the population density of the shrimps before and after the arrival of fishermen. Further, the text also fails to mention the status of other factors such as the increase in dump from the industries in the area, or that there may be a trend of shrimps moving to other areas at certain times of the year. Thus, specific numbers supporting the claim, like the shrimps declined from approximately about five hundred thousand over a certain area to much less than ninety thousand in six months after the incursions by fishermen, would strenthen the argument. Secondly, the writer assumes that number of shrimps should soon begin to increase as breeding time is near. What if the decline in population of shrimps is due to some disease striking the Madagascan waters? There may be an increase in amount of fish species that feeds on shrimps and may have led to this decline. In these cases, chances of increase in the number of shrimps are low. New shrimps may come to existence but on the other hand the older shrimps are losing their lives. Therefore, a better claim would be to mention that after analysis of the waters it was found that water is safe for breeding and no major threat is present for the shrimps other than these fishermen. Hence, number of fishes are expected to grow. Finally, another unwarranted assumption is that the trend would continue over several upcoming year. It may be that government takes measures to prevent the shrimp population, or the fishermen have turned to this area for a short period of time until some other areas, in which they used to fish, are safe again. There may be a case that some non-government organization starts working on increasing the breed of the shrimps, thus saving them from being endangered. Here, it should be mentioned that what are the views of fishermen, government and other organizations regarding this issue and based on that a conclusion should be drawn about the time this trend seems to continue. Hence, we can see that the argument needs to be supported by some concrete proofs and data, before a final conlusion is drawn. Thus, this argument is flawed.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 804, Rule ID: TO_TOO[2]
Message: Did you mean 'too'?
Suggestion: too
...ve hundred thousand over a certain area to much less than ninety thousand in six m...
^^
Line 1, column 1876, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...en have turned to this area for a short period of time until some other areas, in which they u...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2057.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 427.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.81733021077 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54576487731 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54134512154 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.487119437939 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 631.8 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.0218540088 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.277777778 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7222222222 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.44444444444 5.70786347227 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 1.0 5.15768463074 19% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.225021047684 0.218282227539 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0814485206614 0.0743258471296 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0604487538825 0.0701772020484 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.225021047684 0.128457276422 175% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0628817314937 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
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.