In the United States, it had been common practice since the late 1980s not to suppress natural forest fires. The "let it burn" policy assumed that forest fires would burn themselves out quickly, without causing much damage. However, in the summer of 1988, forest fires in Yellowstone, the most famous national park in the country, burned for more than two months and spread over a huge area, encompassing more than 800,000 acres. Because of the large sale of the damage, many people called for replacing the "let it burn" policy with a policy of extinguishing forest fires as soon as they appeared. Three kinds of damage caused by the "let it burn" policy were emphasized by critics of the policy.
First, Yellowstone fires caused tremendous damage to the park's trees and other vegetation. When the fires finally died out, nearly one third of Yellowstone's land had been scorched. Trees were charred and blackened from flames and smoke. Smaller plants were entirely incinerated. What had been a national treasure now seemed like a devastated wasteland.
Second, the park wildlife was affected as well. Large animals like deer and elk were seen fleeing the fire. Many smaller species were probably unable to escape. There was also concern that the destruction of habitats and the disruption of food chains would make it impossible for the animals that survived the fire to return.
Third, the fires compromised the value of the park as a tourist attraction, which in turn had negative consequences for the local economy. With several thousand acres of the park engulfed in flames, the tourist season was cut short, and a large number of visitors decided to stay away. Of course, local businesses that depended on park visitors suffered as a result.
The reading passage and lecture have conflicting opinions about whether or nor the "let it burn" policy is beneficial for forests. The article strongly postulates that individuals objected this policy as well as they asked for replacing it with a policy that extinguish fires once it appears. Also, the main reason behind this is the damage resulted from "let it burn" policy. On the other hand, the listening adamantly delinates that the fires are also, constructive not just destructive. In other words, the fires can be very good for forests even if it''s at the scale of 1988 fire.
First and foremost, according to the author of the excerpt, plants and vegetation in the park were destroyed with yellow stone fire. Moreover, the fire destroyed smaller plants and trees. Nonetheless, the lecture counters these points by insisting that the fire permit new plants to colonize, thereby allowing the forest to become more diverse. meaning that fire destroyed large plants, which blocked the sun and heat from small plants that need an opening. Also, the plant seeds can't germinate without heat.
The professor in lecture further points out that "let it burn policy" created a new opportunity for wildlife diversity, for instance, the small plants provided new habitat for rabbits and hares. subsequently, the predators of these new animals would exist in the area. which results in a strong food chain. These claims refute the writer implication of how the fires in forests have a great negative impact on wildlife.
The article lastly asserts that the fire in the Yellowstone resulted in a huge decline of the visitors of the local area. the speaker in lecture counters these points by declaring that the fire in Yellowstone doesn't happen every year. However, in 1988 there were uncommon conditions such as strong wind that is favorable to spread fires. Also, the visitors started re-visiting the Yellowstone in 1989.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 346, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Meaning
...wing the forest to become more diverse. meaning that fire destroyed large plants, which...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 481, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... need an opening. Also, the plant seeds cant germinate without heat. The professo...
^^^^
Line 5, column 206, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Subsequently
...ided new habitat for rabbits and hares. subsequently, the predators of these new animals wou...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 280, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Which
...se new animals would exist in the area. which results in a strong food chain. These c...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 280, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “which” 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.
...se new animals would exist in the area. which results in a strong food chain. These c...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 123, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...line of the visitors of the local area. the speaker in lecture counters these point...
^^^
Line 7, column 210, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... declaring that the fire in Yellowstone doesnt happen every year. However, in 1988 the...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 403, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ed re-visiting the Yellowstone in 1989.
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, lastly, moreover, nonetheless, so, well, for instance, such as, as well as, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 15.1003584229 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 9.8082437276 31% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.0286738351 109% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 43.0788530466 53% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 52.1666666667 67% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.0752688172 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1646.0 1977.66487455 83% => OK
No of words: 315.0 407.700716846 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2253968254 4.8611393121 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.48103885553 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61339457253 2.67179642975 98% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 212.727598566 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.568253968254 0.524837075471 108% => OK
syllable_count: 502.2 618.680645161 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 9.59856630824 10% => OK
Article: 14.0 3.08781362007 453% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.6352844782 48.9658058833 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.4444444444 100.406767564 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5 20.6045352989 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5 5.45110844103 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.5376344086 144% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 11.8709677419 67% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.85842293907 181% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.147786087805 0.236089414692 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0433796008388 0.076458572812 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0266194339974 0.0737576698707 36% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0859858381572 0.150856017488 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.03258346416 0.0645574589148 50% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 11.7677419355 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 58.1214874552 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.1575268817 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 10.9000537634 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.01818996416 110% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 86.8835125448 100% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => 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
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
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.