The reading passage provides three methods to protect the forests from a microscopic fungus. However, the professor casts doubt on the three methods and points out their limitations one by one.
First and foremost, the reading passage suggests that encouraging hikers to wash their shoes and installing new bike scrubbers on the bicycle can eliminate the human-assisted spread because the fungus can be found byways of shoes and bicycle trails. But the professor contends that the fungus can also be spread by rainwater when the rainwater falls down into streams and goes far away. So this method is not effective enough.
Secondly, the reading passage says that we can use chemicals to stimulate the oak trees' natural defenses against fungus. However, the professor points out that the chemicals can only be effective in a few months, which means we have to inject thousands of trees repeatedly. In conclusion, this is an expensive and impractical method.
Last but not least, the reading passage suggests that burning and cutting infected trees and vegetation around the infected trees can be of help. But the professor argues against it by saying that this method will destroy healthy rare trees in the forest, which is great ecological damage. This method will lead to greater damage to the forest than the fungus.
In a nutshell, the professor argues against the three methods the reading passage proposes and gives out specific reasons and explanations. The three methods are proved to be impractical and not effective.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1290.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 248.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20161290323 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96837696647 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59290184125 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 128.0 145.348785872 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.516129032258 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 377.1 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.7890745376 49.2860985944 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.2307692308 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0769230769 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.07692307692 7.06452816374 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0917905939847 0.272083759551 34% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0376926923732 0.0996497079465 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0418172073776 0.0662205650399 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0543026787463 0.162205337803 33% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0467654935589 0.0443174109184 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.