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. Cleaning 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 the lecture are both about protection methods of trees from P. ramorum, a microscopic fungus which causes serious damage to oaks. The author of the reading provides three possible solutions for this problems. The lecturer challenges author’s claims. He says that none of the suggested solutions are applicable.
To begin with, the author argues that blocking spread of fungus spores can prevent tree destruction. The article mentions that spores transmit through human shoes and bike wheels, so shoes washing and bike scrubbers might become a possible solution. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that most part of spores spread among big area through water streams. Additionally, he says that control of water streams is difficult, so solution is not suitable.
Secondly, the writer suggests fungus-fighting chemicals as a fix for problem. They will not only kill the fungus, but also provoke trees’ natural defense mechanism. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning medication need to be injected directly and its duration for only couple of months. He says that it might be effective for few infected trees in park, but not for whole forest, because high financial expenses are required to inject enormous amount of trees every couple of month.
Finally, author of the passage posits that clear-cutting and burning of infected trees might be a solution. However, lecturer opposes by saying that cleaning will cause grater damage to environment than T.ramorum. This is because besides infected oaks other healthy and rare trees, which cannot grow back easily, will be cut.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 211, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...g provides three possible solutions for this problems. The lecturer challenges autho...
^^^^
Line 1, column 226, 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.
...e possible solutions for this problems. The lecturer challenges author's claim...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, finally, however, if, second, secondly, so, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1387.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 258.0 270.72406181 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37596899225 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68211453094 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.624031007752 0.540411800872 115% => OK
syllable_count: 408.6 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.1427389368 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.5882352941 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.1764705882 21.698381199 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.52941176471 7.06452816374 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.167907834321 0.272083759551 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0555193117791 0.0996497079465 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0937028805906 0.0662205650399 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104298084525 0.162205337803 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0603439443113 0.0443174109184 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.33 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.