Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific methods proposed in the reading passage.
The reading and the lecture offer two opposing views on the solutions proposed by ecologists about the cheatgrass drawbacks. Whereas the author of the reading suggests that these solutions will be practical for abolishing the cheatgrasses, the lecturer states that they are probably not enough strong to be useful. He casts doubt on the main points made in the reading by providing three reasons.
First, according to the text, the grazers such as cattle or livestock will eat the cheatgrass if they were released to the cheatgrass lands. However, the lecturer disputes that the grazers are not willing to eat cheatgrass. He explains that they may eat other native plants first and then start to eat cheatgrass. In this way, the proposed solution would affect conversely.
Secondly, the other solution is that burning the cheatgrass by fire, and based on the text, due the high flammable feature that they have, it is beneficial to remove them. Nevertheless, the lecturer argues that because some of the cheatgrass's seeds may be berried under the surface of the soil, they can survive from fire. Thereafter, they can spead and reproduce themselves, filling lands. Therefor, fire also cannot be beneficial for extingushing cheatgrass.
Finally, the text asserts that by introducing a fungal prasite, cheatgrass will be prevented from regenerating themselves. On the other hand, the lecturer believes that fungal and cheatgrass were living togather for long period, so cheatgrass now are resisted to fungal's damges. He says that only the weakest cheatgrass cannot survive from the danger of the fungals and the strongest ones can resist.
To recap, the lecturer refuses the three possible solutions proposed for removing cheatgrass. He implies that non of them will be functional for this purpose.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 219, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...eless, the lecturer argues that because some of the cheatgrasss seeds may be berried under ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, finally, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, then, whereas, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 15.1003584229 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 9.8082437276 122% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 13.8261648746 51% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 43.0788530466 67% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 52.1666666667 54% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 2.0 8.0752688172 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1513.0 1977.66487455 77% => OK
No of words: 287.0 407.700716846 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27177700348 4.8611393121 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11595363751 4.48103885553 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74142745522 2.67179642975 103% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 212.727598566 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.540069686411 0.524837075471 103% => OK
syllable_count: 437.4 618.680645161 71% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 9.59856630824 73% => OK
Article: 10.0 3.08781362007 324% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.6003584229 78% => 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: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.9484042234 48.9658058833 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.5625 100.406767564 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9375 20.6045352989 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0625 5.45110844103 148% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 11.8709677419 59% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.192768041855 0.236089414692 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0716487972279 0.076458572812 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0599989455298 0.0737576698707 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11890586614 0.150856017488 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0917894880999 0.0645574589148 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 11.7677419355 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 58.1214874552 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 10.1575268817 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.99 10.9000537634 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.01818996416 105% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 86.8835125448 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.0537634409 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.