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.
This argument states that although Madagascan shrimp will soon be entering their breeding season, thereby increasing their population significantly, it will never be able to replenish its population to that of what it was before the deep-sea fisherman began infringing on their habitat. This statement is not supported with any reasoning as to why the population of shrimp would not be able to return to its original capacity. It states that because this trend will continue over several years, the population will continually decrease until it becomes endangered.
Evidence regarding the rate of reproduction of the shrimp as well as the amount of shrimp that the fisherman are collecting is needed to support or weaken this argument, depending on the numbers that are found. It would also be important to observe the length of the fishing season in comparison to the length of breeding season for the shrimp. If the rate of reproduction of the shrimp is lesser than the amount of shrimp that are being caught, ultimately reducing the population, then this would be evidence to say that what this argument is claiming is true. On the other hand, if the shrimp reproduce at a faster rate, then there would be no reason why the shrimp wouldn't replenish their population, weakening the argument. These numbers could be compared with the different lengths of these seasons, because this could also play a role in the amount that is reproduced/caught in comparison with the other.
Another piece of evidence that would strengthen this argument would be to have evidence of other predators in the sea, that, in addition to the deep-sea fisherman, also play a role in the significant reduction of this species. If evidence was provided, stating that other predators play just as big of a role in the diminishing of this species population as the fishermen do, there would be adequate reason to believe that the addition of the fishermen to this would mean that even during breeding season, the species may not be able to keep its population steady, as it had been doing when only dealing with predators of the sea.
In conclusion, this argument solely states this species would not be able to replenish itself to what it was before fishermen arrived, and does not give any evidence as to why it would not be capable of doing this. Evidence to support this argument could be easily found and would ultimately make this argument much more convincing to the unknowing eye.
| 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: 12 15
No. of Words: 417 350
No. of Characters: 2014 1500
No. of Different Words: 167 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.519 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.83 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.592 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 34.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.336 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.422 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.648 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.144 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 669, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...there would be no reason why the shrimp wouldnt replenish their population, weakening t...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, may, regarding, so, then, well, as to, in addition, in conclusion, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 28.8173652695 160% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2056.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 415.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95421686747 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51348521516 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70339968651 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.414457831325 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 637.2 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => 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: 34.0 22.8473053892 149% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 74.8358852572 57.8364921388 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 171.333333333 119.503703932 143% => OK
Words per sentence: 34.5833333333 23.324526521 148% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.83333333333 5.70786347227 155% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.165657651051 0.218282227539 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0795156599001 0.0743258471296 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.045580249674 0.0701772020484 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106751206909 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0527864232266 0.0628817314937 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.2 14.3799401198 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.43 48.3550499002 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 12.3882235529 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.6 11.1389221557 140% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => 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.