The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.
"Two studies of amphibians in Xanadu National Park confirm a significant decline in the numbers of amphibians. In 1975 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 2002 only four species of amphibians were observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. One proposed explanation is that the decline was caused by the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1975. (Trout are known to eat amphibian eggs.)"
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The author argues that, there is a significant decline in the number of amphibians. And to bolster his argument, the author has provided evidence that the reduction in amphibians in Xanadu National Park is due to the introduction of the trout into the park's water. This argument seems to be valid at first glance, but when we analyze this argument in detail it is flawed because the author does have not provides the exact number by which the species were declined. The alternative explanation for the author's argument is given as follows.
Firstly, the author assumes that the reduction in amphibians is due to the introduction of the trout into the Xanadu National Park's water. But there may be other factors responsible for the reduction of the amphibians such as disturbed prey-predator life cycle. It is possible that there might be other amphibians who make prey to most of the amphibians. Also, it is possible that the amphibians get hard to find their prey in the water. Hence they are getting less amount of food and due to appetite they died. Therefore, this might be one of the reasons behind their extinction.
Additionally, it is possible that there is a scarcity of water in Xanadu National Park area. Hence the water level is not enough to survive them in Xanadu National Park. Again, the amount of water is dirty and in a degraded state, for this reason, the water is not suitable for the survival of the amphibians. Therefore the amphibians such as frogs, that can live on land as well, get escaped from there to some other water body. And some amphibians died in water due to dirty state of water.
Lastly, disease can be the major reason behind the endangered amphibians. Moreover, amphibians lived in the National Park, it is possible that they were not getting the proper treatments for the disease. Additionally, the workers in the park are not well-educated to treat the disease of the amphibians. And hence the population got affected by other disease and get dead. The author should consider these factors as the reason behind the extinction of the amphibians.
In conclusion, the author has assumed only the introduction of trout in the water park is the reason behind the extinction of the amphibians. However, there might be other factors responsible such as disturbed prey-predator life cycle, scarcity of water and disease, as mentioned above. Hence the author should also consider these alternative explanations. By discussing these possible reasons, the author is able to make his reasoning more logical and convincing.
- Encyclopedias 73
- Claim Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive Reason It is primarily in cities that a nation s cultural traditions are preserved and generated Write a response in which you discuss the ext 62
- Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected However since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations we cannot permit i 55
- Although innovations such as video, computers, and the Internet seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students, these technologies all too often distract from real learning.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agr 70
- settlement of the Chaco Canyon 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 503, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ed. The alternative explanation for the authors argument is given as follows. Firs...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 439, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...t hard to find their prey in the water. Hence they are getting less amount of food an...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 94, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... of water in Xanadu National Park area. Hence the water level is not enough to surviv...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 311, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ble for the survival of the amphibians. Therefore the amphibians such as frogs, that can ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 288, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... water and disease, as mentioned above. Hence the author should also consider these a...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, so, therefore, well, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2144.0 2235.4752809 96% => OK
No of words: 428.0 442.535393258 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00934579439 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75946350458 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 215.323595506 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.397196261682 0.4932671777 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 674.1 704.065955056 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.5486737865 60.3974514979 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.3333333333 118.986275619 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8333333333 23.4991977007 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.70833333333 5.21951772744 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 10.2758426966 19% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 5.13820224719 234% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.210201538015 0.243740707755 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0735529418826 0.0831039109588 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0701302144159 0.0758088955206 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130945972969 0.150359130593 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.049651662838 0.0667264976115 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.1392134831 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.8420337079 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.1639044944 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.28 8.38706741573 87% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 100.480337079 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.