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. Clearing 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 lecture are both about the effectiveness of proposed solutions to control the population of Phytophthora ramorum, P. ramorum, which infects trees and causes colossal damages in oak trees. The author of the reading passage mentions that by stopping P. ramorum spores from scattering, utilizing fungicides, and applying clear-cutting, the damages can be controlled, however, the lecturer repudiates these factors. The lecturer casts doubts on the three main points made by the author and challenges them effectively.
Firstly, even though the author mentions that by stopping the human-assisted spread which helps spores to be scattered, the P. ramorum’s population can be controlled and it is a cost-effective way, the lecturer rebuffs this idea. The lecturer says that encouraging hikers to wash their shoes or installing new bike scrubbers on their bicycle trails is not practical because the effective spreaders are not human. For instance, rain spreads the spores effectively and the rainwater can carry on them for a long distance. Thus, this idea is problematic.
Secondly, in the reading passage, the author claims that utilizing fungicides can tackle the problem, though the lecturer disagrees with the statement. The lecturer asserts that the procedure cannot be used for a long distance, as well as, it cannot cover the long-range areas. Therefore, using fungicides is not feasible. Besides, this process is expensive.
Last but not least, the reading section suggests that practicing clear-cutting can be deemed as a feasible way to obstruct the spores’ scattering, nevertheless, the lecturer holds that using this technique is problematic and illogical because it reduces populations’ of other rare plant species. Furthermore, it kills the healthy plants and exacerbates the problem.
In conclusion, whereas the author and lecture are both about the effective ways to control spores from scattering, the three main points made by the author is challenged effectively by the lecturer.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 429, 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.
... the lecturer repudiates these factors. The lecturer casts doubts on the three main...
^^^
Line 1, column 532, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...author and challenges them effectively. Firstly, even though the author mentions...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, well, whereas, for instance, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1724.0 1373.03311258 126% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5974025974 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11453510044 2.5805825403 121% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538961038961 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 513.9 419.366225166 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 67.2672200461 49.2860985944 136% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.411764706 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1176470588 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.35294117647 7.06452816374 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.0876911931938 0.272083759551 32% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0400298495862 0.0996497079465 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0979677436711 0.0662205650399 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0494823201006 0.162205337803 31% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0855230919122 0.0443174109184 193% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 53.8541721854 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.9 12.2367328918 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.