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 argument stated is flawed for various reasons. First of all, it fails to provide enough information about the number of deep-sea fisherman practicing fishing in the habitat of Madagascan shrimp. Also, the extent of population reduction of shrimp is not mentioned. There are many other reasons because of which the conclusion becomes unwarranted.
Firstly, the population of shrimp is not mentioned in the argument to make on think that it is at brink of extinction. Furthermore, it is not clearly mentioned that whether fishermen are only fishing Madagascan shrimp or some other species. For example: they may be fishing various varieties of crabs or other species of fishes.
Additionally, argument fails to mention that the significant reduction of species population has effected negatively to the process of breeding in shrimps.
It is implied in the above argument that even after the breeding season is fast approaching, the population of shrimps will not reach the same level as before. however, the argument fails to give any detail regarding why is this phenomenon happening? Hence, the argument does not unequivocally provide the sufficient support for the cause.
As far as the passing years are concerned, the term 'several years' is not clear. It gives a vague understanding of the subject what is actually happening. Exactly how many years is it representing? Is it so drastic to effect the population of these species that they will go extinct? No proof or evidence is given for the above stated conundrum. To figure out the extent of decrease in population, it is necessary to know the current population of shrimps not only near their habitat, but also at other regions where they might be expected to survive or live. This argument considers that species will go extinct due to fishing in the species' habitat, but there is a possibility that the same fauna may be extant in different region.
Due to lack of evidences and proofs and unwarranted assumptions, the argument fails to provide a reasonable and equivocal case to reach the stated conclusion. Had it have mentioned the specific details regarding various cases, then the scenario may have been different.
| 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 |
- Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station’s coverage of weat 63
- All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary. 66
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 66
- Colleges and universities should require their students to spend at least one semester studying in a foreign country. 70
- SuperCorp recently moved its headquarters to Corporateville. The recent surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville proves that Corporateville is a superior place to live than Middlesburg, the home of SuperCorp's original headquarters. Moreov 63
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 357 350
No. of Characters: 1786 1500
No. of Different Words: 178 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.347 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.003 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.744 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 135 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.789 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.328 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.298 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.55 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.048 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 161, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: However
...ill not reach the same level as before. however, the argument fails to give any detail ...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 167, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'has'?
Suggestion: has
... to reach the stated conclusion. Had it have mentioned the specific details regardin...
^^^^
Line 11, column 167, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[4]
Message: Possible agreement error – use past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
... to reach the stated conclusion. Had it have mentioned the specific details regardin...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, regarding, so, then, for example, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1836.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 357.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.14285714286 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34677393335 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8552226205 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.50700280112 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 573.3 705.55239521 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.9287213261 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.8 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.85 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.05 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
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: 0.187679213844 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0517896103901 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0605629055752 0.0701772020484 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101452806337 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0426181818051 0.0628817314937 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => 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.