In the lecture, the professor discussed why none of the three hypothesis in the reading passage is adequate to explain the overall declining of yellow cedar trees.
To begin with, the first hypothesis mentioned in the passage argued that insects like cedar bark beetle may damage the trees. However, as the professor pointed out, it neglected the fact that healthy cedar trees secrete certain chemicals to deal with beetles, so they are resistant to parasites, thus the dying of healthy cedar trees can not be explained.
Secondly, the declining population is not attributed to brown bears, as the second hypothesis assumed. Whilst yellow cedar populations showed an overall decrease around North America continent and islands, brown bears cannot be found on islands at all. So brown bears are not the main cause of population decrease.
Last, the climate change is not blameworthy. The third hypothesis believed that the changing temperature patterns make cedar trees more vulnerable to low temperature. Nonetheless, the speaker reminded that this hypothesis ignored the phenomenon that cedar trees living at lower elevations, that is, in warmer places, are actually dying faster than those in colder places, which is a contrary to the hypothesis.
In conclusion, all of the three reasons mentioned in the reading passage have some certain weaknesses and are not sufficient in explaining the mass dying of yellow cedar trees.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 16, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...ry to the hypothesis. In conclusion, all of the three reasons mentioned in the reading ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, may, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, third, thus, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 22.412803532 45% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1213.0 1373.03311258 88% => OK
No of words: 226.0 270.72406181 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36725663717 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87727950738 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69638989078 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 145.348785872 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.579646017699 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 370.8 419.366225166 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.5679299636 49.2860985944 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.3 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.2 7.06452816374 159% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.379838548968 0.272083759551 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.139031072436 0.0996497079465 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0390182335836 0.0662205650399 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.182248051092 0.162205337803 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.04555817653 0.0443174109184 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 13.3589403974 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.