The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.
"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 discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The letter claims that the introduction of trout is the cause for the species of amphibians in Xanadu National Park to dramatically decline considering trout is known to eat amphibian eggs. At first glance, the conclusion seems to be reasonable. However, due to insubstantial evidence, the argument is unsound.
First, to evaluate the argument, the evidence needed is about the extent to which the local pollution of water and air has on amphibians. The letter mentioned the global contamination of water and air is related to the tremendous decrease of amphibians worldwide; yet, it does not provide any evidence to prove that the local pollution condition has nothing to do with the big drop in the number of amphibians. Without clarification, as the global pollution has done to amphibians, the regional contamination could be the reason that amphibians have dramatically dwindled. If this proves to be true, that is, if the local pollution results in the decline in the number of amphibians, the argument in the letter is unfounded.
Furthermore, to determine the plausibility, the letter needs to substantiate that the amount of trout is considerable enough to cause the tremendous decrease of the amphibians. To extinct three species completely and cause the number of left ones to curtail dramatically, if solely by trout, there have to be a large number of them to eat the eggs. Without justifying the quantity of trout, it could be that the introduced trout may not adapt to the local ecosystem so well. Consequently, its population is not big enough to severely threatening the amphibians. If it is confirmed, the author’s conclusion on trout’s impact on the amphibians is not credible.
Finally, if the argument were to be convincing, the letters has to corroborate that there are no other potential predators of amphibians, which could possibly contribute to the consequential abatement of amphibians. In the letter, it says that trout eats amphibian eggs. They therefore are the reason. Nevertheless, there could be other species that also eat amphibian or their eggs. If it is true, the letter is not reasonable to attribute the cause to trout only.
In conclusion, trout could be the reason that the number of amphibians has decreased dramatically. However, to justify the argument, it needs to provide the aforementioned evidence. Otherwise, the conclusion given by the letter is not cogent.
| 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 |
- Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain y 59
- The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a scientific journal."A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situ 50
- A recently issued twenty-year study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia investigated the possible therapeutic effect of consuming salicylates. Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. 50
- As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take 54
- Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely succeed. Write a response in which you discuss to what extent you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting y 66
Comments
I do not understand. I tried
I do not understand. I tried to use different words for the same meaning, and revised my argument points and logic. How come my score did not improve at all. I REALLY REALLY need help to point out my issues. PLEASE!!!
For argument essays, don't
For argument essays, don't worry about words, sentences, grammar nowadays. You may ignore the marks by e-grader. Focus on the arguments. If the arguments are wrong, the score will be low no matter how great is the language.
Pay attention on language for issue essays.
For this essay, we need to
For this essay, we need to prove trout is not the only reason to cause the decline of amphibians.
argument 1 -- need to argue that Global pollution of water and air still could be the reason. Perhaps amphibians are less comfortable in these kinds of environment. or competition among amphibians may also facilitate the decline.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- since the topic only introduced trout, we better not to guess other predators. We may say: maybe there are some physical changes in the park after 40 years, for example, some lakes, rivers or ponds holding amphibians are disappeared which caused the decline of amphibians.
Thank you!!
Thank you!!
So regarding my firs argument, shouldn't I argume using the LOCAL pollution situation? Or should I use the GLOBLE pollution? I was thinking that Pollution couple be the reason, but the globle pollution level is not necessarily the same as that of local. So, I used local pollution to argume. Please let me know. I Really appreciate your help.
Yes, we need to use local
Yes, we need to use local pollution. Maybe local and global pollution are not related to each other actually, but in the argument, we have to say local pollution could be the potential reason.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 312, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tial evidence, the argument is unsound. First, to evaluate the argument, the evi...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 310, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...y, if solely by trout, there have to be a large number of them to eat the eggs. Without justifyin...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 145, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...otential predators of amphibians, which could possibly contribute to the consequential abateme...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'consequently', 'finally', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'nevertheless', 'so', 'therefore', 'well', 'as to', 'in conclusion', 'it is true']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.219239373602 0.25644967241 85% => OK
Verbs: 0.165548098434 0.15541462614 107% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0782997762864 0.0836205057962 94% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0648769574944 0.0520304965353 125% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0223713646532 0.0272364105082 82% => OK
Prepositions: 0.107382550336 0.125424944231 86% => OK
Participles: 0.0290827740492 0.0416121511921 70% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.18649352108 2.79052419416 114% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0604026845638 0.026700313972 226% => Less infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.120805369128 0.113004496875 107% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0134228187919 0.0255425247493 53% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0111856823266 0.0127820249294 88% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2431.0 2731.13054187 89% => OK
No of words: 390.0 446.07635468 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.23333333333 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44391917772 4.57801047555 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.361538461538 0.378187486979 96% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.289743589744 0.287650121315 101% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.238461538462 0.208842608468 114% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.194871794872 0.135150697306 144% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.18649352108 2.79052419416 114% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 207.018472906 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.428205128205 0.469332199767 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 44.8845645283 52.1807786196 86% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 19.5 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.2252194769 57.7814097925 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.55 141.986410481 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.8 0.724660767414 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 48.4743589744 51.9672348444 93% => OK
Elegance: 1.40707964602 1.8405768891 76% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.40644946078 0.441005458295 92% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.133964581705 0.135418324435 99% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.11371837524 0.0829849096947 137% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.624608122728 0.58762219726 106% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.158474631307 0.147661913831 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.188624274839 0.193483328276 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0968975127745 0.0970749176394 100% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.619218473884 0.42659136922 145% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.048780608664 0.0774707102158 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.322967153997 0.312017818177 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0361798947501 0.0698173142475 52% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.82512315271 187% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
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: This is not the final score. 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.