In the given peompt, the author concludes that the imported western gazelle population has been eliminated due to larger number of predators in the eastern preserve. The authors conclusion is based on the premise that the 'slight' reduction in rainfall cannot be attributed to the elimination of western gazelle. However, while the conclusion drawn by the author might hold water, it rests on several unfounded assumptions that, if not substantiated, weakens the persuasiveness of the argument. Also, the author fails to provide evidences to corroborate his conclusion. Thus, the following evidences and assumptions must be addressed.
First, the author assumes that the 'slight' reduction of rainfall cannot be attributed for the elimination of western gazelle. However, that might not be the case. Perhaps the variation in the rainfall from the western preserve might be substiantial. It is also possible that these wetern gazelle have a predominant proclivity to certain amount for rainfall, for thier survival. The author fails to furbish data to bolster his claim. Perhaps, a weather report from the local metrological department or past rainfall trends, would enable us to commensurate the rainfall. It is higly likely that the rainfall variation is much greater than the tolerance level, leading to elimination of western gazelle. These evidence who help us to evaluate the claim. If the above holds merit, then the conclusion drawn in the original argument is considerably flawed.
Furthermore, the author states that alongside 100 western gazelle, even 100 lions were shifted to eastern preserve. However, the author fails to provide any information regarding the lions. Were lions too, eliminated with western gazelle or they managed to survive, is unclear. For instance, if the lions too were met with the same fate, then we can invigorate the investigation to find the cause for this unfortunate elimination. Reports sighting the number of lions surving would suffice our need for analysis. It is higly likely that these lions too, like western gazelle would be habitual to ranfall and struggle in eastern preserve. Such evidence are vital to evaluate the viability of the claim. If the above is true, then the argument is weakened.
Finally, the author limits his consideration to two factors while investigating the reason for elimination. The author fails to evaluate at the broader aspect, leaving many factors which could potentially lead to elimination. Perhaps investigating the topography, physical features, ecological environment, habitants, etc might lead to the actual reason for elimination. Perhaps, a study on the scietific differenece between the two preserves might be particularly helpful in evaluating the argument. There could be various factors, it is higly likely that the limited scope of argument might lead to fallacious conclusion. If the above is warranted, then the argument is enervated.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now, is significantly flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author may provide the stated evidences stated above to corrobate the claim, perhaps along with scientific data and survey reports, then it will be possible to completely evaluate the argument whether to attribute the elimination to the greater number of predators in the eastern preserve.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 30 15
No. of Words: 520 350
No. of Characters: 2759 1500
No. of Different Words: 230 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.775 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.306 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.856 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 219 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 180 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 116 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 76 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.739 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.284 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.451 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.083 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 171, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... predators in the eastern preserve. The authors conclusion is based on the premise that...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 653, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'is'.
Suggestion: is
...ggle in eastern preserve. Such evidence are vital to evaluate the viability of the ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, so, then, thus, while, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2843.0 2260.96107784 126% => OK
No of words: 520.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.46730769231 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77530192783 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96182253882 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.459615384615 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 891.0 705.55239521 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.5725551395 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.7666666667 119.503703932 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3333333333 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.96666666667 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.127326949413 0.218282227539 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0363554217911 0.0743258471296 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0561974119146 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0709444502147 0.128457276422 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0598960034656 0.0628817314937 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.15 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 98.500998004 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => 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.