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.
Summarise the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they case doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.
The reading and lecture both discuss on the possible ways to prevent the spread of P. ramorum and protect forest from it's damage. The writer of the passage presents three solutions and explains their effectiveness. However, the orator of the lecture is quick to point out the possible flaws in each of these reasoning and solutions. She is of the opinion that they possess serious limitations and are impractical.
To begin with the author states low-cost preventive measures for reducing human-assisted spread of the P. ramorum spores. The article talks about easy ways like washing shoes and installing new bicycle scrubbers on bicycle trail which can be done by us. The lecturer challenges this reasoning by stating another much serious way of spore dispersal; water assisted spread. She explains how rain water carry these spores in the water streams and help in their dispersal. Additionally, she says that this way of spread cannot be easily controlled and unless this is done only controlling human-assisted spread will not make a major difference.
Secondly, the writer suggests use of fungicide chemicals to reduce infection. In the article, it is said that the chemicals work by enhancing the natural defense mechanisms of the oak trees and have proven effective in small scale. The lecture, on the other hand, rebut this statement by pointing out some serious limitations of the methods. She talks about the need of periodic injection of the chemicals in the tree's trunk and how this will not be feasible in large scale like big forest consisting of numerous oak trees. Such periodic injections are needed because the chemicals lose their defense power after few months and need to be supplied again.
Finally the author posits that clear-cutting can be another way of fighting P. ramorum. Moreover, it is explained in the article that this way is often an effective approach because here not only the infected plants but also the nearby healthy plants where the possibility of transmission is higher are all cleared away. In contrast, the lecturer counters this approach by talking on some scenarios where it will not work. She notes that in many places there are some rare trees which cannot be easily grown back living among the oak trees and in such conditions we do not have the liberty of clearing away the entire area. Also, such high scale removal may cause greater ecological damage which may account in loss far greater than that caused by P. ramorum.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 303, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this reasoning' or 'these reasonings'?
Suggestion: this reasoning; these reasonings
...point out the possible flaws in each of these reasoning and solutions. She is of the opinion th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 573, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... controlled and unless this is done only controlling human-assisted spread will n...
^^
Line 9, column 414, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'trees'' or 'tree's'?
Suggestion: trees'; tree's
...iodic injection of the chemicals in the trees trunk and how this will not be feasibl...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 425, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tion of the chemicals in the trees trunk and how this will not be feasible in lar...
^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...ths and need to be supplied again. Finally the author posits that clear-cutting ca...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 67, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...that clear-cutting can be another way of fighting P. ramorum. Moreover, it is ex...
^^
Line 13, column 105, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...of fighting P. ramorum. Moreover, it is explained in the article that this way i...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, in contrast, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 30.3222958057 178% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2076.0 1373.03311258 151% => OK
No of words: 412.0 270.72406181 152% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.03883495146 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50530610838 4.04702891845 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59011858786 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 145.348785872 153% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538834951456 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 634.5 419.366225166 151% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => 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: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.059465772 49.2860985944 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.8 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 7.06452816374 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.121800171355 0.272083759551 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0348100073684 0.0996497079465 35% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0558168795011 0.0662205650399 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0718240658527 0.162205337803 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.03585834744 0.0443174109184 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 63.6247240618 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.