The reading and the lecture are both about salvage logging and its functions. The author of the reading feels that salvage logging is more beneficial both to a damaged forest and to the economy than other ways. However, the lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. He is of the opinion that salvage logging is ineffective way for recovery,and even it can result in significant long-term environmental damage.
To begin with, the author argues that after destructive fire, forests are choked with dead trees. The article mentions that naturally they will take years to decompose, but with the help of salvage logging we can recover forests from the disaster. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that cleaning up trees by salvage logging does not create proper conditions for tree growth. Additionally, he says that slower wood decomposition is more beneficial for future growth of trees than rapid removal of the dead trees with salvage logging.
Secondly, the writer suggests that decaying wood is possible habitat for large numbers of insects that can impair healthy spruce trees.
In the article, it is said that salvage logging minimizes the dangers of insect infestation.
The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that dead trees are not only habitat for harmful insects, but also for the birds, which can provide some benefits for forest. Additionally, he says that salvage logging is more noxious than insects or birds.
Finally, the author posits that salvage logging is economically beneficial. Author says that, It can create some job opportunities for local residents. In contrast, the lecturer says that removing of dead trees by the means of salvage logging is too expensive,so it does not include any economical advantage. He notes that the jobs which are created due to salvage logging are temporary.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 349, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , and
... logging is ineffective way for recovery,and even it can result in significant long-...
^^^^
Line 9, column 260, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , so
...eans of salvage logging is too expensive,so it does not include any economical adva...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, second, secondly, so, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => 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: 1572.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 300.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66929870107 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.516666666667 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 484.2 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.1819616198 49.2860985944 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.4705882353 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6470588235 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.76470588235 7.06452816374 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.09492273731 147% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.541132000716 0.272083759551 199% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.171960233949 0.0996497079465 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0815984265823 0.0662205650399 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.276490310057 0.162205337803 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0976921582517 0.0443174109184 220% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.