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 purported above states that due to the incursion of deep-sea fisherman into the habitat of the Madagascan shrimp have led to a significant reduction in the species population. This statement is somewhat vague and needs more detail. Also, it has been put forward that as the breeding season approaches the number of shrimp increases. But from many years shrimp are not increasing and on the verge of extinct. This statement needs proof which has not been stated in the argument above.
The first statement doesn't specify that the due to the deep-sea fisherman the Madagascan shrimp are reducing. There is no strong point proving these allegations against the deep-sea fisherman. The reason can be different for extinct of the shrimp. It can be possible that due to some disease the fishes as dying. There can be viral spread in the water which undertook the shrimp fishes and thus they are on verge of extinct. Proper evaluation of the area of the sea can result in proper conclusion. Claiming that due to fisherman the species are going extinct is obscure and need proof.
It has been stated that when breeding season approaches the number of shrimp increases. But this time it was noted that the population of the shrimp didn't return to the expected level before the fishing boat arrived. It can be possible that the shrimp are located on the other side of the sea and fisherman are searching them in the wrong place. It can be possible that the population of shrimp had shift themselves in the different part of the sea and thus the fisherman was not able to locate them.
In conclusion, stating that Madagascan shrimp will become endangered species is obscure because proper evaluation is required to state this statement. Only on the basis of the fisherman not able to find the species doesn't prove this claimed statement. The team of people should examine the reason behind the decrease of the species of the Madagascan shrimp and then should reach to the particular conclusion.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-15 | Deepanshu Dewangan | 37 | view |
| 2019-09-13 | bharadwaj98 | 65 | view |
| 2019-09-13 | solankis304 | 23 | view |
| 2019-09-03 | aneela | 23 | view |
| 2019-08-27 | Lutfor Rahman Rony | 58 | view |
- The best leaders are those who encourage feedback from the people whom they lead. 50
- 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, th 23
- The council of Maple County, concerned about the county's becoming overdeveloped, is debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development of existing farmland in the county. But the council is also concerned that such a restriction, by limiting 53
- In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions. 50
- Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic regions. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of the year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed and cold enough, at 63
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/recent-incursions-…
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 343 350
No. of Characters: 1633 1500
No. of Different Words: 148 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.304 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.761 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.462 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 119 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 81 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 57 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.053 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.202 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.421 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.355 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.523 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 21, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... argument above. The first statement doesnt specify that the due to the deep-sea fi...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 150, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...noted that the population of the shrimp didnt return to the expected level before the...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 400, Rule ID: HAD_VBP[1]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'shifted'.
Suggestion: shifted
...sible that the population of shrimp had shift themselves in the different part of the...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 400, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'shifted'.
Suggestion: shifted
...sible that the population of shrimp had shift themselves in the different part of the...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 216, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... fisherman not able to find the species doesnt prove this claimed statement. The team ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, so, then, thus, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1666.0 2260.96107784 74% => OK
No of words: 340.0 441.139720559 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.9 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29407602571 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52270657091 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.444117647059 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 500.4 705.55239521 71% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.9202179446 57.8364921388 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.6842105263 119.503703932 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8947368421 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.68421052632 5.70786347227 47% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.280213863066 0.218282227539 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0930988332812 0.0743258471296 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0967295882253 0.0701772020484 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183444602028 0.128457276422 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0722237952417 0.0628817314937 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 14.3799401198 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 48.3550499002 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.84 12.5979740519 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.22 8.32208582834 87% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 98.500998004 60% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.