The reading states that human population caused much harm to wildlife, in particular birds. However, the professor explains that it does not harm to wildlife and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that increasing human population result in disappearing of bird's natural habitats. The professor refutes this point by stating that it may harm some habitats but it would be better for the other inhabitats. He explains that some population are shrinked but some other inreases in cities and near the roads.
Second, the reading states that agricultureal activities increase to keep pace the growing human population. As a result, it also results n the further destruction of bird habitats. The professor contends that the new production crops result in more food.
Third, the reading states that the use of chimical pesticides in agriculture results in poisonious food resources for birds. The professor refutes this point by saying that chimical pesticides will develope in the future. He explains that there would be two change in the future: new pesticide develops and grow more pesticide resist crop chemical. As a resualt, he says that it does not harm birds.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 128, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...poisonious food resources for birds. The professor refutes this point by saying t...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, third, in particular, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 10.4613686534 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 18.0 30.3222958057 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1002.0 1373.03311258 73% => OK
No of words: 192.0 270.72406181 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21875 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.72241943641 4.04702891845 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6841063845 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 103.0 145.348785872 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.536458333333 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 302.4 419.366225166 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => OK
Sentence length SD: 22.3698395663 49.2860985944 45% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 83.5 110.228320801 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.75 7.06452816374 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.335209254526 0.272083759551 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126928637536 0.0996497079465 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0845141778587 0.0662205650399 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.195655405425 0.162205337803 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0710143290058 0.0443174109184 160% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.7 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 63.6247240618 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.