"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 what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
According to the letter, the decline of amphibians in the park was caused by the introduction of trout into the park's waters. This explanation may seem plausible at first glance. However, in order to evaluate this argument critically, we need to take into account a number of alternative explanations regarding the studies, the environmental conditions, and other factors that may not sustain the survival of amphibians.
To begin with, there are some alternative explanations for the fact that the study in 2002 only found four species in the park and the number of each species was reduced. For example, it is probable that the study only sample some relatively small region in the park where there are little amphibians. Under such circumstances, this study would observe few amphibians, but this doesn't imply the population of amphibians are actually decline. Similarly, if the study is conducted during noon when the amphibians are hidden, the real number of amphibians will not be observed. Hence, without more information concerning the study, the argument is untenable as there are some other explanations for the result of the study.
In addition, even if the study reflect the real condition of amphibians in the park, it is still possible that the environmental changes in the park cause the reduce of amphibians. To be more specific, maybe the pollution in the park has become more and more severe, leading to the reduction of all the species in the park. Or perhaps, the climate in the park now is considerablely different than in 1975. If any of the aforementioned conditions is the case, the population and the number of species of amphibian will decline. Obviously, we need more information apropos of the record of environment condition in the park from 1975 to rule out these possiblities.
Finally, we also need to examine the rival explanations regarding other factors which are essential to the survival and reproduction of amphibian. For instances, it is possible that there are few animals in the park could serve as food resources for amphibians. Without enough nutritions to sustain the huge population, the number of amphibians would inevitablely decrease. Similarly, it is equally possible that the there are few suitable places for amphibians to lay eggs. If amphibians prefer to lay their eggs near the water while there are few river in the park, the number of eggs could be laid will not guarantee enough reproduction. In this case, the population will gradually decline. Consequently, it is of paramount importance to scrutinize these alternative explanations so as to verify the argument.
In conclusion, the explanation of the reduction of amphibians proposed by the author, as it stands now, is extremely flawed, since there are several alternative explanations. Only when the author could provide more information to rule out these rival explanations can the argument be confirmed valid.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-07-06 | yomi idris | 50 | view |
| 2022-07-04 | Vincent Samuel | 60 | view |
| 2022-02-10 | piyushac123 | 54 | view |
| 2021-07-28 | manjunath180397 | 58 | view |
| 2020-09-30 | arjun8001 | 53 | view |
- The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a manufacturing company During the past year workers at our newly opened factory reported 30 percent more on the job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries Panoply produces products ve 59
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement When teachers assign projects on which students must work together the students learn much more effectively than when they are asked to work alone on projects 83
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement People in the past are more interested in improving their neighbourhood the area where they live than now 73
- Recently we signed a contract with the Fly Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our warehouse in Palm City but last month we discovered that over 20 000 worth of food there had been destroyed by pest damage Meanwhile the Buzzoff P 78
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement People in the past are more interested in improving their neighbourhood the area where they live than now 73
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: 22 15
No. of Words: 474 350
No. of Characters: 2395 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.666 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.053 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.927 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 160 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 80 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.545 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.834 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.343 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.538 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.129 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 379, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... would observe few amphibians, but this doesnt imply the population of amphibians are ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 434, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'declined'.
Suggestion: declined
...e population of amphibians are actually decline. Similarly, if the study is conducted d...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 156, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...environmental changes in the park cause the reduce of amphibians. To be more specific, may...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 393, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style.
Suggestion: from
...he park now is considerablely different than in 1975. If any of the aforementioned c...
^^^^
Line 7, column 546, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun river seems to be countable; consider using: 'few rivers'.
Suggestion: few rivers
...eir eggs near the water while there are few river in the park, the number of eggs could b...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 550, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'rivers'?
Suggestion: rivers
...eggs near the water while there are few river in the park, the number of eggs could b...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 784, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...rutinize these alternative explanations so as to verify the argument. In conclusion, ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, consequently, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, regarding, similarly, so, still, while, as to, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 55.5748502994 130% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2463.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 473.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20718816068 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66353547975 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03112269099 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.443974630021 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 783.0 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.811297253 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.954545455 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.68181818182 5.70786347227 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.67664670659 278% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.324623849502 0.218282227539 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0965873313728 0.0743258471296 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0831202715521 0.0701772020484 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.179426817453 0.128457276422 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0857186255323 0.0628817314937 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.