In 1995 a microscopic fungus called phytophthora ramorum, or P. ramorum, was first detected in the forests of the western United States. P. ramorum infects trees and causes particularly serious damage in oak trees: in many infected oaks, leaves wither rapidly, large cracks appear in the bark, and the trees die. A spread of P. ramorum represents a serious threat to the forests in the western states. Several methods of protecting the forests have been proposed.
First, stopping P. ramorum spores from spreading would surely be an effective method. Spores are small particles through which all fungi, including P. ramorum, reproduce. Researchers have discovered that many P. ramorum spores can be found along hiking or biking trails, suggesting human-assisted spread by way of shoes and bicycle tires. A few measures to prevent such human-assisted spread-like encouraging hikers to wash their shoes and installing new bike scrubbers on bicycle trails-would be an effective and low-cost way to stop the spread of P. ramorum.
Second, there are a few fungicidal (fungus-fighting) chemicals that can be used to protect the oak trees. Some of these chemicals stimulate the oak trees’ natural defenses against the P. ramorum fungus and have been found in small-scale tryouts to significantly reduce the likelihood that the oaks will be infected.
A third way to fight P. ramorum is a practice called clear-cutting. This approach starts with cutting and burning the diseased oaks, but it also involves cutting and burning the seemingly healthy vegetation (bushes and other kinds of trees) surrounding the oaks. This is done because some of the surrounding plants and trees may be infected even though they do not show any symptoms of the disease. Cleaning large areas of vegetation in places where diseased trees are found is often an efficient measure to stop the spread of infections.
The reading and the lecture are both about a fungus named P.ramorum. The author of the reading feels that there are three methods to protect oak trees from this harmful fungus. The lecturer challenges the claim made by the author. He is of the opinion that all three of the proposals are faulty and provides evidence in favor of his opinion.
To begin with, the author argues that stopping the spread of spores of the fungus would protect oak trees. The article mentions that people hiking and biking contribute to the spread of spore and preventing them would reduce the spread. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He describes that water plays a vital role in spreading the spores. Spores fall into the streams and they carry the spores to far areas. Additionally, he mentions that as water is inevitable, hindering the spread is not practically possible.
Secondly, the writer suggests that a chemical can be used to stop the infection of oak tree caused by this specific fungus. In the article, it is stated that it is already been proved in small-scale tryouts that the oak tree doesn't get infected if the chemical is injected. The lecturer, however, refutes this by mentioning that this method is not practical. This method may be good for some trees in the central park of a city, but for forests, it would require very hard and costly efforts. He elaborates on this by bringing up the point that these injects will be in action for only 3 months or so. So, it will be impractical to use this, method too.
Finally, the author posits that clear cutting of areas with some infected trees can reduce the chances of infection to other trees. Moreover, in the article it is stated that some trees may not show evidence of infection, but should be burned. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that ther can be rare breeds of tree that should not be burned by vchance
He notes
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 178, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ect oak trees from this harmful fungus. The lecturer challenges the claim made by t...
^^^
Line 9, column 226, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...n small-scale tryouts that the oak tree doesnt get infected if the chemical is injecte...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 22.412803532 165% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1585.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 334.0 270.72406181 123% => OK
Chars per words: 4.74550898204 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27500489853 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42209647382 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 145.348785872 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.517964071856 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 473.4 419.366225166 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.843915289 49.2860985944 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.4210526316 110.228320801 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5789473684 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.73684210526 7.06452816374 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.124435296515 0.272083759551 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0391964347538 0.0996497079465 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0538122345762 0.0662205650399 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0740874997713 0.162205337803 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0282069964397 0.0443174109184 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.7 13.3589403974 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 71.14 53.8541721854 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.97 12.2367328918 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.