If the paper from every morning edition of the nation’s largest newspaper were collected and rendered into paper pulp that the newspaper could reuse, about 5 million trees would be saved each year. This kind of recycling is unnecessary, however, since the newspaper maintains its own forests to ensure an uninterrupted supply of paper
The author of this editorial expresses opinion that the local newspaper doesn't need to be concerned about recycling because it maintains its own forest.
On the surface, this appear a reasonable point of fview. The local newspaper is acting responsibly by managing its own forest rather than cause deforestation in other places. The argument lacks evidence to support it.
First, the author states that newspaper manteins its own forest to ensure an interrupted supply of paper. This assumes that there will be no natural catastrophes such as hurricanes, forest fires and tsunami that could be destroy the forest. If the forest were wiped out, the newspaper would not have other source of paper to print its daily morning nwespaper.
As an alternative the newspaper could print on recicled paper making the act of recycling very useful. If the author provide evidence that the forest is allocated in a secure geographical aerea with minimal natural disaster or provide evidence the newsapeper had a back up forest as a source for their forest could not provide paper for their newspaper, his argument could be strenghten.
Second, the author states that the newspaper has a source of paper for the daily edition of the paper. This argument ignores any enviromental impact that many argue that are necessary, especially if 5 million trees are saved each year. If the author provided evidence that 5 million tree per years was environmental insignifican, his argument would be streghten.
In conclusion, because the argument is based on flawed assumptions, is not possible to prove that recycling is unnecessary. The author did not give enough information that its source of paper is stable or that the environmental impact of recycling are irrelevant.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 73, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...resses opinion that the local newspaper doesnt need to be concerned about recycling be...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 126, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g responsibly by managing its own forest rather than cause deforestation in other...
^^
Line 4, column 361, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...r to print its daily morning nwespaper. As an alternative the newspaper could prin...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, second, so, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 55.5748502994 45% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1478.0 2260.96107784 65% => OK
No of words: 284.0 441.139720559 64% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20422535211 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.56307096286 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80202940314 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 204.123752495 72% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.514084507042 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 468.9 705.55239521 66% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.1348400251 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.571428571 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2857142857 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.21428571429 5.70786347227 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.273225081819 0.218282227539 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102815940534 0.0743258471296 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0593843771164 0.0701772020484 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144672174116 0.128457276422 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0705719353162 0.0628817314937 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 98.500998004 65% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.