My assessment on this argument indicates that it is well reasoned, but not well reasoned. To support his point the author cites the hunters’ report. However, this information source is too limited and unreliable. Another evidence of the global warming trends is not persuasive, either, since the trends do not lead to deterministic result that the sea ice melts. The author leaves out many alternatives that could be the real causes for the decline in the deer’s’ number.
First of all, it is ridiculous to use the reports from the hunters to support the authors’ reasoning. Local hunters’ interest is highly related to the number of the deer. So it is not hard to imagine the possibility that the deer populations are not actually declining but just slightly vibrating. The hunters might be too sensitive about their fruit thus overemphasizing the significance of the deer populations’ change. Besides the specialty of the hunters’ group, to believe partially to the very several reports suffers from the lack of validity, too. Let alone that the hunters are not experts on population statistics. The author should refer more to professional surveys such as those conducted by local statisticians and biologists.
Secondly, the author mentions that it is the global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt. This statement is suspicious. Surely, the existence of global warming trends might be true, but are those trends significant to melt the sea ice? What if the temperature decreases a little while it remains still above the freezing point of sea water in the deer’s habitats? Just pointing out the trends is not sufficient to infer the melting of the sea ice. Supplemental statistics on the regional meteorology might provide valuable evidence.
Finally, the author attributes the declining of deer’s populations to their inability to migrate without considering many alternatives. Plenty of factors could affect the deer’s populations, both human-made and natural. For example, the decline in deer’s number might originate from the increasingly intensive hunting. Consequently, it is the hunters, not the environment that should be to blame. Plus, the increase in the deer’s predators would also constrain the species’ growth. Diseases could render a negative effect, too. Before excluding those possibilities, it is presumptuous to make the conclusive remarks.
To sum up, the author’s argument is undermined by the flaws of limited and partial information, and failing to contain influential factors comprehensively. An overall investigation on the deer’s populations might enhance the knowledge of the real situation. Plus, to spare some attention to other possible causes of the deer’s decline could help making more reasonable decisions.
- 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 88
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones. 58
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Movies and television have more negative effects than positive effects on the way young people behave. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 83
- Nature's Way, a chain of stores selling health food and other health-related products, is opening its next franchise in the town of Plainsville. The store should prove to be very successful: Nature's Way franchises tend to be most profitable in areas wher 50
- Claim: Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive. Reason: It is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated. 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 362, Rule ID: ADVISE_VBG[5]
Message: The verb 'help' is used with infinitive: 'to make' or 'make'.
Suggestion: to make; make
...s of the deer's decline could help making more reasonable decisions.
^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'besides', 'but', 'consequently', 'finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'still', 'thus', 'well', 'while', 'for example', 'such as', 'first of all', 'to sum up']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.251386321627 0.25644967241 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.13123844732 0.15541462614 84% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0794824399261 0.0836205057962 95% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0628465804067 0.0520304965353 121% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0203327171904 0.0272364105082 75% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0813308687616 0.125424944231 65% => OK
Participles: 0.0351201478743 0.0416121511921 84% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.25417381917 2.79052419416 117% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0369685767098 0.026700313972 138% => OK
Particles: 0.00554528650647 0.001811407834 306% => OK
Determiners: 0.121996303142 0.113004496875 108% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0221811460259 0.0255425247493 87% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00739371534196 0.0127820249294 58% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2851.0 2731.13054187 104% => OK
No of words: 435.0 446.07635468 98% => OK
Chars per words: 6.55402298851 6.12365571057 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.420689655172 0.378187486979 111% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.342528735632 0.287650121315 119% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.24367816092 0.208842608468 117% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.193103448276 0.135150697306 143% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.25417381917 2.79052419416 117% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 207.018472906 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.533333333333 0.469332199767 114% => OK
Word variations: 61.7045388222 52.1807786196 118% => OK
How many sentences: 28.0 20.039408867 140% => OK
Sentence length: 15.5357142857 23.2022227129 67% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.1991627308 57.7814097925 54% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.821428571 141.986410481 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.5357142857 23.2022227129 67% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.714285714286 0.724660767414 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 49.7885878489 51.9672348444 96% => OK
Elegance: 1.71551724138 1.8405768891 93% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.400546754184 0.441005458295 91% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0719663068479 0.135418324435 53% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0601949118097 0.0829849096947 73% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.534623287545 0.58762219726 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.177224846149 0.147661913831 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.173738275195 0.193483328276 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0751361737845 0.0970749176394 77% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.563392023526 0.42659136922 132% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0276744468235 0.0774707102158 36% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.32150015346 0.312017818177 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0299137701089 0.0698173142475 43% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.33743842365 180% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 15.0 6.46551724138 232% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 21.0 14.657635468 143% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.