The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News:
"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."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The author claims that the West Lansburg council must not permit a road construction along the edge of the wetlands as it may result in decline of biodiversity and quality of environment as in Eastern Carpenteria. I do not agree with the author on this decision for the following reasons.
The author has taken the example of Eastern Carpenteria to illustrate the effects that the construction of a road along the edge of the wetlands may have on the sanctuary. However, the argument is not sturdy as the reasons for decline in the sea otter population are not mentioned. Hence, it is not safe to assume that that the decline was due to some form of human intervention. There is surely a high possibility that the decline may have been due to other reasons that the author has not touched upon. These reasons must be explored.
Furthermore, the writer mentioned that the status of sanctuary was repealed for Eastern Carpenteria. This leads to the question of why such an action occurred in the first place? It is a possibility that the officials were not doing a good job in the maintenance for the welfare of the biodiversity. The status may have been revoked to ensure further freedom for the fauna in the habitat. Providing evidence about the reasons for revocation would help in weakening the argument.
The author must also consider the situation of more neighboring sanctuaries in order to strengthen his argument. Deciding on the basis of only one other example is not sufficient.
Finally, details about the usage of the access road if it is built will be helpful to make a knowledgeable decision. This would factor in the trouble it may cause to the sanctuary and assessments can be made about the impact that the road may have on the ecology.
Once the above insights are noted the author can take a well-informed stance on the notion as compared to before.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-18 | sandeshbhandari2 | 50 | view |
| 2019-10-06 | Adebayo | 63 | view |
| 2019-09-11 | banu.abdikadirova | 63 | view |
| 2019-09-11 | Ramzah Rehman | 16 | view |
| 2018-09-16 | dhruvsawhney | 24 | view |
- The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations, so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you a 50
- The way a message is delivered is often more important than the message itself.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and suppo 80
- The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News:"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 wi 58
- 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.Write a response in which you discu 66
- The following editorial appeared in the Broomall County Times-Picayune:"The Gordon Act, which established a wildlife refuge in the Big Dark Swamp, is currently up for reauthorization. The act prohibits the building of roads or cutting of old growth trees 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... decision for the following reasons. The author has taken the example of East...
^^^
Line 3, column 318, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: that
...tioned. Hence, it is not safe to assume that that the decline was due to some form of hum...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...pon. These reasons must be explored. Furthermore, the writer mentioned that t...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ould help in weakening the argument. The author must also consider the situat...
^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...one other example is not sufficient. Finally, details about the usage of the ...
^^^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t the road may have on the ecology. Once the above insights are noted the au...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'finally', 'first', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'then', 'well', 'in the first place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.249275362319 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.15652173913 0.15541462614 101% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0550724637681 0.0836205057962 66% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0463768115942 0.0520304965353 89% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0202898550725 0.0272364105082 74% => OK
Prepositions: 0.15652173913 0.125424944231 125% => OK
Participles: 0.0463768115942 0.0416121511921 111% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.78041541438 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0289855072464 0.026700313972 109% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.171014492754 0.113004496875 151% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0405797101449 0.0255425247493 159% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00289855072464 0.0127820249294 23% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1899.0 2731.13054187 70% => OK
No of words: 324.0 446.07635468 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.86111111111 6.12365571057 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.57801047555 93% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.320987654321 0.378187486979 85% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.246913580247 0.287650121315 86% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.16975308642 0.208842608468 81% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.114197530864 0.135150697306 84% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78041541438 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 207.018472906 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.487654320988 0.469332199767 104% => OK
Word variations: 49.3661282393 52.1807786196 95% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0588235294 23.2022227129 82% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.3772864308 57.7814097925 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.705882353 141.986410481 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0588235294 23.2022227129 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.705882352941 0.724660767414 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 3.58251231527 167% => OK
Readability: 43.7501815541 51.9672348444 84% => OK
Elegance: 2.02597402597 1.8405768891 110% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.593307701808 0.441005458295 135% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.132249329728 0.135418324435 98% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0702838789379 0.0829849096947 85% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.67467393392 0.58762219726 115% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.179887921768 0.147661913831 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.298407780258 0.193483328276 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120732134377 0.0970749176394 124% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.464341203668 0.42659136922 109% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.151736538212 0.0774707102158 196% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.417236428877 0.312017818177 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0927603986623 0.0698173142475 133% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.33743842365 36% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations to cover all aspects.