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.
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.
While the argument of the Madagascan shrimp becoming an endangered species is alarming, the analytics and evidences the author provided is rife with holes and assumptions. It is not easy to conclude that the shrimp will become endangered just because fishermen will continue the incursions. The general knowledge of the ecosystem does not agree with the conclusion driven by the author.
First of all, the author fails to provide significant statistical data about the severity of the incursions of the fisherman into the habitat of the Madagascan shrimp. Without proper and enough data to back up the conclusion of significant reduction, the author simply states that the reduction will be greater than the rate of breeding. More discrepancy in logic can be found, if we take into account that there is nothing mentioned in the argument about the profit or the advantage that will persuade the deep-sea fishermen to continue the trend of fishing out the shrimps.
Additionally, the argument implies that the trend of incursions will continue without providing proper data about the popularity of these shrimps. For all we can assume, the profit can plummet and the fishermen might lose interest in the incursions. Madagaskar might be subjected to unfortunate climate changes, the shrimp habitat might be displaced due to that reason.So author needs to justify the reasons for continued fishing for shrimps in the area. Also, there needs to be a justification as why this rate of fishing will beat the rate of population rise of the shrimps.
The argument lacks enough evidence to come into conclusion that the population of the shrimps will not return to levels before fishing boat arrived. Scientific studies can be done to increase the breeding capability of these shrimps by providing proper catalysts.
In conclusion, without proper evidence and scrutinization, the conclusion provided is not strong enough to indicate a ban on fishing shrimps. Other scientific steps can be taken that can be beneficial to both the fishermen and the species. However, the argument does not provide the proper explanation to come into conclusion that Madagascan shrimp will quickly become and endangered species.
| 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 following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station."Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the 42
- Formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free. 83
- Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than 34
- Universities should require students to take courses only within those fields they are interested in studying. 62
- Workers in the small town of Leeville take fewer sick days than workers in the large city of Masonton, 50 miles away. Moreover, relative to population size, the diagnosis of stress-related illness is proportionally much lower in Leeville than in Masonton. 48
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 353 350
No. of Characters: 1818 1500
No. of Different Words: 155 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.335 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.15 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.735 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 144 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.533 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.541 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.467 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.363 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.598 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.108 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 370, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: So
...t might be displaced due to that reason.So author needs to justify the reasons for...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, so, while, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1861.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 352.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28693181818 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33147354134 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81860419993 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.448863636364 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 576.0 705.55239521 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.8773570204 57.8364921388 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.066666667 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4666666667 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.26666666667 5.70786347227 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.168981532104 0.218282227539 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0648679660046 0.0743258471296 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0503725967922 0.0701772020484 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109440743752 0.128457276422 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0374712705402 0.0628817314937 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.