Arctic deer live on islands in Canada’s arctic regions

TOEFL, IELTS, Personal Statement and CV Proofreading Services. GRE Writing Arctic deer live on islands in Canada’s arctic regions

  • Jeff Q
    University: Central university of finance and economics
    Nationality: China
    August 19, 2020 at 8:08 am

    Arctic deer live on islands in Canada’s arctic regions. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of the year.

    In the argument, the author concludes that the reason forthe decline of arctic deer population is the global warming which melts the ice and makes deer’s migration impossible. To support this point, the author cites the information of local hunters’ report and the global warming trend. Nevertheless, when critically examining the argument, the evidence lends little credibility to the conclusion, considering that some other indispensable evidence is needed to evaluate the argument.

    In the first place, the author mentions reports from local hunters but fails to prove whether such reports can be representative and whether reports from hunters bear authority. Only when made by scientific analysis and based on numerous examples can reports be convincing. However, the fact is, the author does not mention how many hunters have reported the phenomenon and whether those reports can cover all of or, at least, the majority of Canadian islands. If merely several hunters who come from some particular islands have reported the fact, unsurprisingly, we are not be able to believe that it is a universal fact. For example, it may be the result of some currents disturb that causes the temperature to rise near the minority of islands. Moreover, hunters’ reports are almost merely based on their rough observation and estimate. Considering that they are not experts, it is possible that they cannot accurately report the population change. Maybe, it is a limited and normal shrink. In this case, the author should invoke some scientific analysis and statistics to make such a conclusion.

    In the second place, the author contributes the decline to the global warming. Although two facts happen simultaneously, the author does not provide any direct proof on the relationship. Assuming that it is just a coincidence, global warming is present but is not strong enough to affect the significant ice melt in the north pole. When trying to build a connection between the global warming and the population decline of deer, the author should provide evidence about how much the global warming affect the ice melt in the particular area.

    In the third place, the author does not testify that when being unable to migrate, deer cannot survive. Actually, it seems to be not the case. Considering that animals usually migrate to forage for food, when the environment is hospitable enough, which results from the global warming, plants get plentitude in a single island. Under this scenario, deer are able to get enough nutrients without migration, which makes migration no longer necessary. In order to buttress the point, the author should prove that deer still have to migrate to forage for food.

    To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility for evidence is still too scarce to roll out alternative possibilities. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to furnish more information concerning the quality of reports, the connection between the global warming and the deer’s population decline, and the necessity of migration after the temperature rising.

    Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the purported decline in deer populations is the result of the deer’s being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea.

    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.

    August 20, 2020 at 2:37 am

    Score: ungraded

    Issues:

    1. About 40% of the sentences exceed 20 words. Shorten/split them.
    2. Lengthy paragraphs. Restrict each paragraph to 90 words.
    3. Article errors
    4. Plural versus singular errors
    5. Wordy – remove unnecessary words

    I will send you screenshots to illustrate specific problems/errors.

    Jeff Q
    University: Central university of finance and economics
    Nationality: China
    August 20, 2020 at 11:36 am

    In the argument, the author concludes that the reason for the decline of the arctic deer population is global warming, since it melts ice and makes migration impossible. To support this point, the author cites the information on local hunters’ reports and the global warming trend. Nevertheless, the evidence lends little credibility to the conclusion for some other indispensable evidence is needed to evaluate the argument.

     

    In the first place, the author mentions reports from local hunters but fails to prove the representativeness and the authority of those reports. Only when made by scientific analysis and based on numerous examples can reports be convincing. However, the fact is that the author does not mention how many hunters have reported the phenomenon and whether those reports can cover the majority of Canadian islands. If reporters are from several hunters and a minority of islands, they will not present us with the whole picture. For example, current disturbance may also be able to change the climate of an area. Moreover, hunters’ reports are barely based on their rough observation and estimate. Considering that they are not experts, hardly can they accurately report the population change. Maybe, it is just a normal fluctuation. In this case, the author should invoke some scientific analysis and statistics to draw a conclusion.

     

    In the second place, the author contributes the decline to global warming. Although two facts happen simultaneously, the author does not provide any direct proof of the existence of the causality. Assuming that it may be a coincidence, global warming is present but is not strong enough to induce the significant ice melt in the north pole. When trying to build a connection between those two facts, the author should provide evidence about how much global warming affects the ice melt in the particular area.

     

    In the third place, the author does not testify that when being unable to migrate, deer cannot survive. Actually, it seems to be not the case. Generally speaking, animals migrate to forage for food. When global warming raises the temperature there, the climate will get hospitable enough for more plants to survive. Under this scenario, deer are able to get enough nutrients without migration. In order to buttress the point, the author should prove that deer still have to migrate to forage for food.

     

    To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility for evidence is still too scarce to roll out alternative possibilities. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to furnish more information concerning the quality of reports, the connection between global warming and the decrease in deer population, and the necessity of migration after the temperature rising.

    August 26, 2020 at 1:59 am

    In the argument, the author concludes that the reason for the decline of the arctic deer population is global warming,  [ punctuation error ]since it[unclear pronoun  ] melts ice and makes migration impossible[wordy  ]. To support this point, the author cites the information on local hunters’ reports and the global warming trend. Nevertheless, the evidence lends little credibility to the conclusion (for some other indispensable evidence is needed to evaluate)[ unclear ] the argument.

    In the first place, the author mentions reports from local hunters but fails to prove the representativeness and the authority of those reports. (Only when made by scientific analysis and based on numerous examples)[unclear  ] can reports be convincing. However, (the fact is that)[ wordy/replace with one word ] the author does not mention how many hunters have reported the phenomenon and whether those reports (can cover)[  unclear] the majority of Canadian islands[wordy  ]. If reporters are from several hunters and a minority of islands, they[unclear pronoun  ] will not present us with the whole picture. For example, current disturbance (may also be able to)[wordy  ] change the climate of an area. Moreover, hunters’ reports are barely based on their rough observation and estimate. Considering that they[ unclear pronoun ] are not experts, hardly can they accurately report the population change. Maybe, it[ unclear pronoun ] is just a normal fluctuation. In this case, the author should invoke some scientific analysis [ /analyses ] and statistics to draw a conclusion.

    In the second place, the author contributes the decline to global warming. Although two facts happen simultaneously, the author does not provide any direct proof of (the existence of the causality)[unclear  ]. Assuming that it[ unclear pronoun ] may be a coincidence, global warming is present but is not strong enough to induce the significant ice melt in the north pole. When trying to build a connection between those two facts, the author should provide evidence (about how much global warming affects the ice melt in the particular area)[ wordy/unclear ].

    In the third place, the author does not testify that when being unable to migrate, deer cannot survive[difficult to read  ]. Actually[redundant  ], it [ unclear pronoun ]seems to be not the case. Generally speaking, animals migrate to forage for food. When global warming raises the temperature there, the climate will get hospitable enough for more plants to survive. Under this scenario, deer are[ grammatical error ] able to get enough nutrients without migration. In order to buttress the point, the author should prove that deer still have [ grammatical error ]to migrate to forage for food.

    To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility for[ unclear word ] evidence is still too scarce to roll out alternative possibilities. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to furnish more information concerning the quality of reports, the connection between global warming and the decrease in [ article error ]deer population, and the necessity of migration after the temperature rising.