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 least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the purported decline in deer populations is the result of the deer's being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea.
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 argument that there is a decline in the arctic deer population due to the recent global warming trends is based on reports from local hunters. The author tries to convince the reader that this decline is actually an outcome of recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, due to which the deer are unable to follow their age-old migration patterns and hence are facing extinction. While the line of reasoning is somewhat persuasive, it committed biased sample fallacy and Insufficient Statistics Fallacy. Therefore, is logically not sound.
First of all, the argument commits a biased sample fallacy. The author concluded reports provided by a group of local hunters, It is possible that the hunters who reported the decline are not a very reliable source of this information. The argument cast aside the opinion of census data, research scholars as well as views of environmentalists on this particular issue. So, the author should address the views of some reliable sources to support his argument.
Secondly, the author states that the primary reason behind the declining population of the deer is due to the repercussions of global warming, which a very hasty generalization there may be many other and more significant reasons for the downfall of this particular fauna in the region. The author omits some of the major facts such as the presence of poachers in the region which may be using the deer as their primary target, local residents might be hunting these artic deers for their security or as their meat source.
Finally, the argument potentially stated that due to the consequences of global warming the deers might have been unable to follow their old migration patterns which is quite flawed as many researches have suggested that animals are quite adaptive in nature they tend to mold themselves to survive in challenging conditions hence they might have been successful in developing new patters across the frozen area. Hence, this assumption is flawed and needs to be scrutinized thoroughly.
In sum, the argument is neither sound nor convincing since it overlooks many possibilities that must be addressed to strengthen its statement. If it included the items described above, it may be more strong or persuasive.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-17 | okazaki11 | 72 | view |
| 2022-06-19 | Soumyadip Kar | 53 | view |
| 2022-05-09 | fredrickomoarukhe37@gmail.com | 54 | view |
| 2021-09-18 | Tej | 60 | view |
| 2021-09-15 | Robur_13 | 55 | view |
- 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 le 58
- Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts Write a response in which you d 50
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state even if these areas could be developed for economic gain Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position 83
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 371 350
No. of Characters: 1857 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.389 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.005 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.683 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 140 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 98 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 67 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 16.762 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.786 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.318 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.053 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 304, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...r fauna in the region. The author omits some of the major facts such as the presence of poa...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, hence, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, while, such as, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 55.5748502994 76% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1895.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 371.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10781671159 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38877662729 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74012518847 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.525606469003 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 591.3 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 100.97089902 57.8364921388 175% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.357142857 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.5 5.70786347227 166% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.110376904217 0.218282227539 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0307088099541 0.0743258471296 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0429064133741 0.0701772020484 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0564368199309 0.128457276422 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0464300050921 0.0628817314937 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.48 8.32208582834 114% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.