The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they were declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2004, development along the coastal wetlands has been prohibited. Now local development interests are lobbying for the West Lansburg council to allow an access road to be built along the edge of wetlands. Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria, which had a similar sanctuary, has seen its sea otter population decline since the repeal of its sanctuary status in 1978. In order to preserve the region's biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment, the West Lansburg council should not allow the road to be built."
In the letter to the editor for the West Lansburg, the auther claims that Lansburg council should prevent from allowing the road to be built in the West Lansburg; he asserted based on the evidence that, in the past year, the population of otter in the nearby otter sanctuary declined after the construction of the road through the scanctuary. The argument as a whole depends on several unwarranted assumptions and the evidence provided lacks to bolster the claim. Therefore, futher informations are needs to be provided in order to analyze the viability of the claim.
To begin, the argument doesn't mention the similarities and differences of the West Lansburg and the neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria. And also, what are the similarities and differences of the tufted groundhog and sea otter? For instance, it might be case that the two regions are significantly different in terms of area, forest denseness, etc. And, it might also possible that the behaviour of the two wildlife towards human behaviour is significantly different. If the area of the West Lansburg sanctuary is significantly higher than that of East Carpenteria, then it might be possible that road construction would not affect the population of the tufted groundhog. If any of these have merit then the argument as a whole doesn't hold water.
Similarly, the argument doesn't provide information about the suitability of the construction of road in the West Lansburg; but, the auther directly asserted that the construction of road will be the replica of the nearby otter sanctuary. For instance, the habitat of the both wildlife might not be the same and the road construction might affect the population of the one wildlife but not the another. If this might be the case then, the argument is significantly weakened.
Furthermore, can we copy the effects of a certain activity on sanctuary to another? Of course not. Also, the argument compares the fact of almost 20 years past to the present; which might not be necessarily true.
In conclusion, the argument as a whole makes numerous groundless assumptions and the evidence provided are not enough. Therefore, the aforementioned further information is required in the form of systematic research so that the claim not to allow the road to be built through the sanctuary is practicable or not.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-28 | Gnyana | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-07 | Ataraxia-m | 16 | view |
| 2023-08-07 | Ataraxia-m | 33 | view |
| 2023-08-05 | Ataraxia-m | 66 | view |
| 2023-07-20 | BusariMoruf | 47 | view |
- The first step to self knowledge is rejection of the familiar 50
- Altruism is a type of behavior in which an animal sacrifices its own interest for that of another animal or group of animals Altruism is the opposite of selfishness individuals performing altruistic acts gain nothing for themselves Examples of altruism ab 35
- In this age of intensive media coverage it is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for th 79
- The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musicians has been dead for several generations so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment 75
- The extended family is less important now than it was in the past 70
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 383 350
No. of Characters: 1894 1500
No. of Different Words: 159 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.424 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.945 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.925 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 126 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.938 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.131 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.812 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.348 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.577 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 24, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...of the claim. To begin, the argument doesnt mention the similarities and difference...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 726, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...have merit then the argument as a whole doesnt hold water. Similarly, the argument ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 24, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t hold water. Similarly, the argument doesnt provide information about the sui...
^^
Line 5, column 26, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...hold water. Similarly, the argument doesnt provide information about the suitabili...
^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he argument is significantly weakened. Furthermore, can we copy the effects of ...
^^^
Line 7, column 72, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...fects of a certain activity on sanctuary to another? Of course not. Also, the arg...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, if, similarly, so, then, therefore, for instance, in conclusion, of course
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1948.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 380.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12631578947 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41515443553 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99178931813 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.439473684211 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 595.8 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.5062081035 57.8364921388 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.588235294 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3529411765 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.76470588235 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.0965788136629 0.218282227539 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0334710085492 0.0743258471296 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0463900300186 0.0701772020484 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0510029036576 0.128457276422 40% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0385841060691 0.0628817314937 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.