In 1975 a wildlife census found that there were seven species of amphibians in Xanadu National Park, with 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. There has been a substantial decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide, and global pollution of water and air is clearly implicated. The decline of amphibians in Xanadu National Park, however, almost certainly has a different cause: in 1975, trout which are known to eat amphibian eggs were introduced into the park.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In the argument, the author concludes that the primary reason for the decrease in amphibians is the presence of trout in the National Park in 1975. The editor comes to this conclusion based on several premises, which, if correct, could indicate that the argument holds water. As it stands now, however, the mentioned implications from the editor of the magazine rest on three unwarranted assumptions that hinder the argument's credibility.
First of all, the author assumes that the 1975 census was conducted scientifically. But this might not be the case. Perhaps it was done by some junior students whose final scores were not at all dependent on this census, and in turn, they did not put in enough effort to conduct it well. In addition, it is possible that, at the time, there were not enough experienced scholars in this field to create well-designed research with regard to the depletion of amphibians. If either scenario above proves true, the author’s argument that trout plays a prominent role in the disappearance of amphibians is not persuasive.
Moreover, the editor presumes that a species being observable is indicative of its numbers. For example, if we cannot spot any number of amphibians at a specific time of the year, the reason might underlie that time of the year; amphibians hiding somewhere else. Or even they could be foraging in places that are hard to go and examine whether some of them could be found or not. If it is true that not being truly visible inevitably does not amount to the depletion of that species, then the author’s contention is significantly hampered.
Finally, the author makes the assumption that the trout and amphibians lived in the same environment in the National Park. Conceivably, there is a chance that these two species are separated in order to preserve the amphibians from the trout, since they are said to be the prayer of amphibians' eggs. In addition to this, the introduction of trout in 1975 could be only one of the many other factors of the diminishing numbers of amphibians, like birds or other animals. If that proves correct, then the editor’s argument is not overly compelling.
To conclude, although the author's central claim might be convincing, indicating the only reason for the amphibians' decline is the introduction of trout is incorrect. And the author needs to consider the above three alternate explanations if he/she hopes to bolster its persuasiveness.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-30 | tomlee0205 | 54 | view |
| 2023-04-16 | AtharvaKale | 55 | view |
| 2023-01-02 | mahyarr | 58 | view |
| 2023-01-02 | mahyarr | 83 | view |
| 2022-10-20 | TE | 54 | view |
- A local collage is having an international day You want to speak about your country to students from different cultures Write a letter to the collage head In your letter tell him her about topics you are going to talk about explain why they would be of in 84
- Many parts of the world are losing important natural resources such as forests animals or clean water Choose one resource that is disappearing and explain why it needs to be saved Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion 89
- The chart below shows the results of a survey of people who visited four types of tourist attractions in Britain in the year 1999 78
- Some people think that older employees are more useful to a company Others believe that in this modern time younger workers are more useful Discuss both views and give your own opinion 61
- Smoking not only harms smokers but also those who are nearby Therefore smoking should be banned in public places To what extent do you agree or disagree 78
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 406 350
No. of Characters: 1980 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.489 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.877 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.765 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 135 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 103 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.556 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.112 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.778 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.312 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.312 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.08 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 417, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...unwarranted assumptions that hinder the arguments credibility. First of all, the author ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, so, then, well, for example, in addition, first of all, it is true, with regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2037.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 405.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02962962963 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86570203142 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523456790123 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 628.2 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.5552511404 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.166666667 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.18358346124 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0523545257565 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0489549472253 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0934849100743 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0448992173379 0.0628817314937 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.