Argument Topic: 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."
If the population of the tufted groundhog living in the coastal wetlands was declining before the West Lansburg wetlands were declared as a wildlife sanctuary and have been steady ever since the declaration in 2004, there is a good probability that the extant population will be severely affected by the human intrusion in their surroundings. However, above drawn conclusion scratches the surface of the argument. Upon further insight into the argument, the correlation is drawn between West Lansburg being subjected to the human activity via access road constructed across the wetlands and repeal of sanctuary status of Eastern Carpenteria is weak.
Repeal of sanctuary status would allow hunters to shoot and kill animals without any intervention from government, this can't be compared with the construction of an access road. This assumption is based on the awareness of people living in the area about the critical condition of a particular species based in the wetlands. Furthermore, the construction of a road will not hamper the biodiversity if checkpoints are built for vetting of vehicles for illegal hunting. If the population data hints at a mild decline in tufted groundhog populace with human interaction in other regions, biodiversity would still be largely affected. The critical and delicate balance of nature can be affected by just a slight decline in the population of one species.
The evidence from a wildlife sanctuary where land animals like tufted groundhogs became endangered after the construction of a similar project would strengthen the argument the most. As parallels can be easily drawn with the impact of a road construction project on the danger to biodiversity. Further, if tufted groundhogs population data suggests the species being prone to roadkill by cars the argument will be further strengthened.
| 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. 66
- Argument Topic: 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 we 50
- Claim: Even though young people often receive the advice to “follow your dreams,” more emphasis should be placed on picking worthy goals.Reason: Many people’s dreams are inherently selfish.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which 50
- A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio."We need to increase the funding for the movie Working Title by 10% in order to ensure a quality product. As you know, we are working with a first-time director, whose only previous 55
- A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labor. 50
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
No. of Words: 289 350 //minimum 3 arguments wanted.
----------------------
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: 11 15
No. of Words: 289 350
No. of Characters: 1531 1500
No. of Different Words: 156 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.123 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.298 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.919 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 98 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.273 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.947 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.455 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.383 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.556 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.068 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 3 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 121, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... any intervention from government, this cant be compared with the construction of an...
^^^^
Line 5, column 184, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...would strengthen the argument the most. As parallels can be easily drawn with the ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, still, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 13.6137724551 15% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 4.0 28.8173652695 14% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1555.0 2260.96107784 69% => OK
No of words: 289.0 441.139720559 66% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38062283737 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.56307096286 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98206867191 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.546712802768 0.468620217663 117% => OK
syllable_count: 479.7 705.55239521 68% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 19.7664670659 56% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.0104795012 57.8364921388 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.363636364 119.503703932 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.2727272727 23.324526521 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.36363636364 5.70786347227 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 3.0 5.15768463074 58% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.184854590637 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.065358836383 0.0743258471296 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0628760083945 0.0701772020484 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133702859334 0.128457276422 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0644940396209 0.0628817314937 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 14.3799401198 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.3550499002 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.22 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.57 8.32208582834 115% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
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.