"Two studies of amphibians in Xanadu National Park confirm a significant decline in the numbers of amphibians. In 1975 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 2002 only four species of amphibians were observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. One proposed explanation is that the decline was caused by the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1975. (Trout are known to eat amphibian eggs.)"
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The environmental magazine showed that Xanadu National Park in 1975 had seven species of amphibians and in 2002 had four species. The reason why Xanadu National Park losing their species is not just because of global water and air pollution toward the amphibian but because of eating a amphibian eggs. The environmental magazine gives the idea that congenially logical at first glance, but there are no evidences that are not exactly understanding the vision of the argument.
First of all, the gap years between 1975 and 2002 is not logically convincing that there was drastic change. This magazine didn’t explained about how many species were disappeared during 23years; in other words, the possible data can be during 23years, Xanadu National Park was steady and gradually losing their species. If magazine only observed two different years (1975 and 2002), then it couldn’t purport drastic change.
Secondly, there is no evidence that there was no effect from global substantial decline toward the amphibian from Xanadu National Park as well as global pollution of water and air. When it comes to global cause, it means that there is nowhere that wouldn’t be caused. However, environmental magazine didn’t engender the fact that amphibians in Xanadu National Park were influenced by these situation. There should have been an explanation why did those effect not thwart declination in number of amphibian species.
Moreover, there is no such evidence that which eggs were eaten from those seven species from 1975. Xanadu National Park should’ve showed statistics that eggs from which amphibian had been eaten. Because if it didn’t explained overall, then there could be the other possible reason such as cause of water pollution and air pollution. Then, it can influence the argument negatively.
In conclusion, there had been non-logical argument with unproven reasons. However, if environmental magazine show the result of the evidence then it will surely help to buttress the argument that Xanadu National Park has been decreasing because of eating eggs.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 285, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ard the amphibian but because of eating a amphibian eggs. The environmental magaz...
^
Line 1, column 303, 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.
...but because of eating a amphibian eggs. The environmental magazine gives the idea t...
^^^
Line 5, column 395, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this situation' or 'these situations'?
Suggestion: this situation; these situations
...Xanadu National Park were influenced by these situation. There should have been an explanation ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 392, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... can influence the argument negatively. In conclusion, there had been non-logica...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 262, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...been decreasing because of eating eggs.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, well, in conclusion, such as, as well as, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 55.5748502994 58% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1777.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 327.0 441.139720559 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.43425076453 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7444570734 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 204.123752495 75% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.470948012232 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 539.1 705.55239521 76% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.4984199158 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.0625 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4375 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.3125 5.70786347227 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.365470878934 0.218282227539 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.1200594389 0.0743258471296 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.09981935136 0.0701772020484 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.202251708722 0.128457276422 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0764979294559 0.0628817314937 122% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.67 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 98.500998004 64% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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 by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.