shrimp
Even though the argument may contain value, particularly in it’s judgement of the impact of human activity on animal welfare, the multitude of assumptions make an argument that can not be relied upon and perhaps overly naive in understanding the complex issues surrounding environmental systems.
For example, the argument almost instantly establishes with an assumption over the cause of the claimed decline, stating that the cause of the decline is diver incursion. This is a fallacy in single cause. Although the author might be correct in suggesting that these divers do have a negative impact on the population of shrimp, he fails to acknowledge the other plausible explanations for this decline. Perhaps indirect human activity in climate change has made the sea climate too hot for the shrimp to survive in they way they did before? Maybe a new predator has been populating in greater numbers this year? The author is perhaps directionally right in his claim but ignorant to the multitude of other causes the could be to blame.
The author also fails to acknowledge time frames and seasonal changes within his argument stating that the ‘recent’ incursions have reduced shrimp numbers. Later stating that the breeding season has not begun. Undoubtedly failing to understand that the measurements of shrimp numbers are being falsely aligned with the happenstance of these incursions.
Moreover, the author makes several more assumptions leading to speculation of the future that these shrimp will become endangered. Stating that over the next few years the ‘trend will continue’ with the decline of shrimp. This argument again fails to be aware of the factors surrounding that could be short term or contextually change. Perhaps laws of diving in the area will change. The shrimp will recover their reproduction rates. There are many factors that can alter a system beyond those that are visible on the surface level.
In conclusion, the author might have a partially true claim in the impact of human activity on animal population, but his tendency to assume and speculate only weakens his argument and creates an argument that cannot be taken seriously. In order to improve his plight, the author must not rely on assumption and single cause but seek to understand the complex systems and possible causes for this decline of shrimp beyond that of divers. This will add strength to his argument. Moreover, the author should be more imperial in his approach, having an argument around data over an extended period of time, perhaps a year of 4 seasons or longer, which would allow him to truly evaluate his claims over more concrete evidence. Rather than relying on speculation, this reliance on the imperial approach would surely add coherency and believability to his argument.
- The best leaders are those who encourage feedback from those who they lead. 50
- shrimp 41
- Discussion is useless in changing someone’s core beliefs 58
- Science and technology will someday be able to solve all of society’s problems. 70
- Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news. During the same time period, most of the complaints we received from viewers were concerned with 69
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 453 350
No. of Characters: 2288 1500
No. of Different Words: 220 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.613 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.051 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.605 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 181 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.571 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.358 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.381 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.296 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.506 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.081 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 589, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...n argument around data over an extended period of time, perhaps a year of 4 seasons or longer,...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, may, moreover, so, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2368.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 453.0 441.139720559 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22737306843 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61343653406 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78924590073 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507726269316 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 736.2 705.55239521 104% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.8162811018 57.8364921388 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.761904762 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5714285714 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.66666666667 5.70786347227 47% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.183196156665 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0707124078354 0.0743258471296 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0950833362913 0.0701772020484 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123858865443 0.128457276422 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0894051860456 0.0628817314937 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 98.500998004 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.