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 author concludes that the decline in Arctic deer populations is the result of the deer’s inability to follow their archaic migration patterns across the frozen sea. He provides support for the conclusion by showing evidence of the decline coinciding with recent global warming trends that have caused melting of the sea ice. However, the argument is flawed and evidence must be provided for these three following cases in order to evaluate the argument properly.
First of all, it is important to evaluate whether they search for foods in multiple islands by moving over ice from island to island. The author prematurely assumes that food of the deer does not remain in a particular island rather it is dispersed in the islands. However, this may not be the case. It is possible that the plants on which the Arctic deer feed grows only on a particular island and if they can find the plants, they will stay on that island for the whole season without moving to other islands. The argument fails to address this issue and so it is seriously weakened.
Secondly, it is important to evaluate whether the local hunters who report on the decline of the Arctic deer are responsible for their extinction or not. The author assumes that the local hunters don’t hunt the deer in an excessive amount and thus don’t exacerbate the situation. This may not be true. It is very likely that they hunt for the Arctic deer very frequently. The argument does not consider this case and so it does not hold water.
Last, but not least, it is very much necessary to evaluate whether recent global warming has caused the sea ice to melt in Canada’s arctic regions where the deer live. The author, without any evidence, assumes that the regions where the deer live are also affected by global warming. In reality, this may not be the situation. Perhaps, the region where the deer live is still in pristine condition from the deleterious effects of global warming and the sea ice in the regions is not melting. If this has merit, then the argument will be seriously flawed.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands, is seriously flawed due to reliance on unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able provide necessary evidences for the above stated three cases then the conclusion regarding the reason of decline of Arctic deer population can be evaluated otherwise it will remain seriously flawed.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 411 350
No. of Characters: 1934 1500
No. of Different Words: 175 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.503 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.706 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.402 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 99 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.55 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.298 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.325 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.525 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.073 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, then, thus, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1997.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 409.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8826405868 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49708221141 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48287515392 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.447432762836 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 619.2 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.8537375652 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.85 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.45 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.29735162965 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0853109979248 0.0743258471296 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106980670591 0.0701772020484 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.160544165909 0.128457276422 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.122100075628 0.0628817314937 194% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.