The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News:
"The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they were declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2004, development along the coastal wetlands has been prohibited. Now local development interests are lobbying for the West Lansburg council to allow an access road to be built along the edge of wetlands. Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria, which had a similar sanctuary, has seen its sea otter population decline since the repeal of its sanctuary status in 1978. In order to preserve the region's biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment, the West Lansburg council should not allow the road to be built."
The author of the letter has suggested on not going forward with constructing the road. The author's suggestion arrives from the conclusion that is not supported by enough evidence. So a closer look is worthwhile. According to me, the conclusion is erroneous in various respects and so I disagree with the author. Let us have a look into some of the reasons why the author is misled.
Firstly, the local development interests are lobbying for the council to allow an access road to be built along the edge of the wetlands. There is no mention of disturbing the main area of the sanctuary. So the authors assumption that this road will disturb the wildlife in the sanctuary is incorrect. Inversely, the road will only serve to attract more people to visit the sanctuary which will increase its revenue and thus more money can be generated to improve the condition of the wildlife and the sanctuary itself.
Secondly, the development is not expected to repeal the sanctuary status of the wetlands which is what happened with the neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria. Since its sanctuary status is not in any danger, the author is incorrect in thinking that its fate will be similar to the latter. It is also not clear what caused the decline in the population of the sea otter in Eastern Carpenteria. This decline could be the result of anything. Since no direct relation between the repeal of the sanctuary status and the decline in the population of the wildlife is stated it would be wrong to assume that the repeal was the reason for the declivity on the population chart of the sea otter.
So, it can be seen that the author assumes some points which are inaccurate and based on these assumptions suggested not to construct the road. Since the assumptions are baseless the council should move on with the construction of the road.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-15 | Apollo100 | 55 | view |
| 2019-11-14 | Roshan Dhakal | 77 | view |
| 2019-11-12 | AAAA2222 | 69 | view |
| 2019-10-06 | vismay0110 | 77 | view |
| 2019-08-18 | Mehnu | 59 | view |
- The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News:"The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they were declared 16
- The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations, so that his or her fame does not interfere with the honest assessment. 58
- The main reason we should study history is to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.Write a response in which you examine your own position on the statement. Explore the extent to which you either agree or disagree with it, and support you 16
- Men and women, because of their inherent physical differences, are not equally suited for many tasks. 54
- The luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 93, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...forward with constructing the road. The authors suggestion arrives from the conclusion ...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 214, Rule ID: ACCORDING_TO_ME[1]
Message: This phrase can sound awkward in English. Consider using 'in my opinion' or 'I think'.
Suggestion: In my opinion; I think
...idence. So a closer look is worthwhile. According to me, the conclusion is erroneous in various...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 338, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ith the author. Let us have a look into some of the reasons why the author is misled. Fi...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 212, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... the main area of the sanctuary. So the authors assumption that this road will disturb ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 145, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ns suggested not to construct the road. Since the assumptions are baseless the counci...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, look, second, secondly, so, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1522.0 2260.96107784 67% => OK
No of words: 316.0 441.139720559 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8164556962 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67932406392 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.477848101266 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 469.8 705.55239521 67% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.601118469 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.125 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.75 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0625 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.040469979113 0.218282227539 19% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0150548481472 0.0743258471296 20% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0177838879574 0.0701772020484 25% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0260434889083 0.128457276422 20% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00976957584589 0.0628817314937 16% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.3799401198 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 12.3882235529 48% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.