The reading and the lecture are both about the effects and the consequences of suppression of forest fires. The author of the reading believes that preventing forest fires is beneficial for the forest and has positive influence in terms of wilderness management. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article and states that the disadvantages of suppressing forest fires outweigh the advantages.
First, the author points out that trees simply will live longer and have a better health without forest fires. It is also mentioned that in some areas, such as Eastern Seaboard, many trees flourish, so that the treetops form a continuous canopy. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She illustrates that the continuous canopy prevents certain young trees, such as oaks, in their growth due to the lack of light. Furthermore, she argues that other type of trees with less need for light flourish wildly under these conditions.
Secondly, the author contends that chemicals experiments showed that forest fires decreases the nutrients in the ground. Moreover, the article states that vines and small bushes simply can be burnt down due to fires. The lecturer rebuts this argument. First of all, after forest fires, more valuable nutrients were discovered than before. Further, she argues that the suppression of forest fires will lead to a wild growth of vines and bushes, which will cover the whole ground of the forests and thus small plants will not have the possibility to grow.
Finally, the author states that wildlife can be harmed through burning. Moreover, the article illustrates that the suppression of forest fires has led to an increase of deer population. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that the growth of deer population has also his negative aspect. She puts forth the concern, that even if small plants and trees grows by overcoming the obstacles mentioned in the paragraphs above, they will be eaten by a deer.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, such as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1647.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 322.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1149068323 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23607819155 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56412117705 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.540372670807 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 479.7 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.720545206 49.2860985944 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.8823529412 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9411764706 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.70588235294 7.06452816374 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.217102083351 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0661990935189 0.0996497079465 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0561513090556 0.0662205650399 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134829793161 0.162205337803 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0581421120974 0.0443174109184 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.