Recent incursions by deep-sea fishermen into the habitat of the Madagascan shrimp have led to a significant reduction in the species population. With the breeding season fast approaching, the number of shrimp should soon begin to increase. Nonetheless, the population should not return to the levels before the fishing boats arrived. Because this trend is expected to continue over the next several years, the Madagascan shrimp will quickly become an endangered species.
The given argument is flawed for numerous reasons. It is trying the make rapid conclusions without proper evidence to support its claims.
The first assumption it makes is that it is indeed the incursions by deep-sea fishermen that is responsible for a significant reduction in the species population. Although it is a likely possibility, there isn't enough supporting evidence to prove that as a fact. There could be a presence of multiple other factors playing a role here. For instance, there may be environmental factors like raising of seawater temperature due to global warming, which rose to levels unsuitable for the Madagascan shrimp to thrive. Another possibility is a role of water pollution, the heightened levels of industrial chemicals in seawater may be toxic for the shrimp. So, there is a need for some evidence of the claim that excess fishing is leading to this population decline and further study to safely rule out other possible factors that may play a role.
Another assumption it makes is that the population won't return back to previous levels, though very likely if indeed the fishing is excessively done, there still isn't enough evidence to support this. If the rate of growth of species is more than fishing rate, it could return to previous levels. There is a need to calculate and compare the rate of fishing and the rate of growth of species population to make a firm decision.
The argument also assumes that this trend would continue over the next several years, this won't be necessarily true. The market demands for Madagascan shrimp may decline over next few years or the fishing control body may impose restrictions on the fishing location or quantities which, in turn, may reduce the rate of fishing of these shrimps.
Another fallacy is that, even if everything in this argument is indeed true, it is not necessary that the shrimp will become an endangered species, because of the possibility that Madagascan shrimp being not restricted to those particular areas where fishing is being done, there may be multiple other locations where these shrimps are found or may have migrated. There is a need for a more extensive survey regarding whether the shrimp is only found in that particular part of the world where fishing is being done or not.
With the above fallacies, we can say the argument makes multiple unwarranted assumptions and there is a dire need for more evidence to support them.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-15 | Deepanshu Dewangan | 37 | view |
| 2019-09-13 | bharadwaj98 | 65 | view |
| 2019-09-13 | solankis304 | 23 | view |
| 2019-09-03 | aneela | 23 | view |
| 2019-08-27 | Lutfor Rahman Rony | 58 | view |
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 412 350
No. of Characters: 1991 1500
No. of Different Words: 184 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.505 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.833 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.631 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.761 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.339 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.635 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.134 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 206, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...hough it is a likely possibility, there isnt enough supporting evidence to prove tha...
^^^^
Line 3, column 57, Rule ID: RETURN_BACK[1]
Message: Use simply 'return'.
Suggestion: return
...on it makes is that the population wont return back to previous levels, though very likely ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 163, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...ishing is excessively done, there still isnt enough evidence to support this. If the...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, may, regarding, so, still, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2027.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 408.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.9681372549 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49433085973 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66407813921 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.477941176471 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 646.2 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => 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: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.374865069 57.8364921388 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.6875 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.5 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.110344864705 0.218282227539 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0397944288185 0.0743258471296 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.061985747176 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.049353664587 0.128457276422 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0427009490015 0.0628817314937 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.01 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.