The main idea of both the reading and the lecture is about an innovative method including taking advantages of box-shaped devices to collect water from atmosphere for fighting against the desertification which has brought up numerous consequences for both animals and human beings. Although the author states some reasons implying that this technique is not practical, the lecturer finds them unconvincing and provides three counter reasons to refute them all.
First of all, the author mentions the expenses for these devices for millions of trees. On the other hand, the lecturer explains that once the younger trees grow enough, there is no more need for such devices. Plus, these devices are designed to be reused several time, for example, more than twenty times for growing more trees. Therefore, the costs woul be logical and worthwile.
Furthermore, the author of the text states that maintaining and insatlling these devices would be problematic since people sould be volunteer to impose such devices for trees which have no profits for them in harsh climate. In contrast, the lecturer denies this notion, pointing out that this method would have some possible rewards for local people. Not only are they able to utilize thses devices to collect water to cultivate vegetables and other plants, but also they can take advantages f wood branch for making fire in those harsh environment. Hence, this state-of-the-art method would be gainful for residents of desert.
Eventually, the author mentions the devices' restrictions for conserving and collectin body of water in harsh environment. However, the lecturer dismisses this fact, citing that younger trees after growing sufficiently, posses long root to search for undergound water and moisture. Thus, they can survive without these box-shaped staffs. For one thing, this method has been applied to trees in Sahara desert for almost two years and 90 percent of them were successfully thrived and still blossom after these devises have been removed.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 257, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun time seems to be countable; consider using: 'several times'.
Suggestion: several times
...these devices are designed to be reused several time, for example, more than twenty times fo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 432, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n Sahara desert for almost two years and 90 percent of them were successfully thr...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, so, still, therefore, thus, for example, in contrast, first of all, for one thing, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1701.0 1373.03311258 124% => OK
No of words: 318.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34905660377 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62031969681 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 145.348785872 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.575471698113 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 504.9 419.366225166 120% => 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
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.564949106 49.2860985944 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.5 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7142857143 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.7857142857 7.06452816374 153% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
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: 0.135605541651 0.272083759551 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.052945849356 0.0996497079465 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0392473931586 0.0662205650399 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0902486705086 0.162205337803 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0332559699675 0.0443174109184 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.8 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.