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."
National park has various forms of wildlives. Animals are sheltered and protected in national parks. Almost every living being are important for the balance of ecological system. However, the global warming and other risk posing factors like deforestation, air/water pollution have caused risk to the wildlives. The given premises are valid; however, they are incomplete and need further deliberate study to come up with a more tenable, valid, reliable conclusion. The argument, put forth in here, is rife with holes and fallacious assumptions.
The decline in the number of amphibian species and the number of each species in the Xanadu National park could be misleading. To count the amphibian number, the author could have visited the sites that are not generally inhabited by them. The author might have surveyed a smaller area that could not represent the whole national park. The time of study to count the amphibian species could not be proper as they could have been under hibernation during that period of time. So, nothing has been mentioned by the author regarding the time and sample area of study.
Additionally, it should be noted that the trout which were introduced in 1975 might have died; there might be no trout at the moment. Without knowing the current existence of trout, the author has held them responsible for reduction in amphibian numbers. For example, perhaps there are other forms of lives in the national park that feed upon amphibians.
The author assumes that trout is responsible for the declining number of amphibians. Without any clear evidence, the author has attributed the decreasing number and species of amphibians to trout, which, perhaps, might not have eaten the eggs. Had the author contemplate on the effect of other factors like water/ air pollution, global warming on the survival of amphibians egg, he would have come across with other aspects of decreasing amphibian population. The predators might have fed upon the fully developed adult amphibians.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-01 | Reetin | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-14 | Captain | 35 | view |
| 2019-10-30 | sushil koirala | 43 | view |
| 2019-09-05 | Krishna Prasad | 50 | view |
| 2019-09-03 | wogns030609 | 50 | view |
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones. 50
- The following appeared in a health newsletter."A ten-year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago, approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets, whereas today that 59
- On Balmer Island, where mopeds serve as a popular form of transportation, the population increases to 100,000 during the summer months. To reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, the town council of Balmer Island should limit the 66
- Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. Only about 2 percent of customers have filed a formal complaint, indicating that an average of 98 people out of 100 are happy with the 50
- Claim: We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from those whose views contradict our own.Reason: Disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning. 50
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 324 350
No. of Characters: 1634 1500
No. of Different Words: 161 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.243 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.043 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.495 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 113 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 85 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 56 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.716 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.222 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.321 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.518 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.121 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ith holes and fallacious assumptions. The decline in the number of amphibian spec...
^^^
Line 3, column 460, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...have been under hibernation during that period of time. So, nothing has been mentioned by the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, regarding, so, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1686.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 323.0 441.139720559 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21981424149 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23936324884 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61232071849 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.520123839009 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 518.4 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.582525279 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.6666666667 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9444444444 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.44444444444 5.70786347227 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.167000902021 0.218282227539 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0575025050376 0.0743258471296 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0710077760659 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.098170284107 0.128457276422 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0395861701155 0.0628817314937 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.7 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.