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.
The reading passage and the lecture are both about proposed methods of protecting forests in the western states o of being harmed by P. ramorum. While the author of the reading suggests three methods to prevent the damage of forests, the lecturer opposes each of these methods.
To begin with, the writer states that preventing the spores of P. ramorum from spreading would be a sufficient approach. In the article, it is mentioned that humans could contribute to applying this method by washing their shoes while they hike. The lecturer, however, challenges this specific method by mentioning that it does not have a huge impact. Moreover, she says that it is not the human-assisted spread factor the most important factor of spreading the spores, but the water streams and rains fall that carry the spores for long distances.
Secondly, the author argues that using certain chemicals materials could protect the oak trees. In contrast, the lecturer rebuts this by stating it is impractical way to use because it would only work if the infection was directly into the tree. Furthermore, she brings up the idea even if this approach could be applied in small gardens with few oak trees, it could not effective to apply in the big forests, and it iso expencive.
Lastly, the lecture challenges the idea of using the clear-cutting method. She points out that this method could destroy the healthy rare plants that surrounding oak. As a result, this would bring big ecological damage to the forests.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, lastly, moreover, second, secondly, so, while, in contrast, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => 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: 1261.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02390438247 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56968714268 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.593625498008 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 366.3 419.366225166 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.525684453 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.0 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3076923077 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 7.06452816374 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => 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: 0.100729116588 0.272083759551 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0311540551915 0.0996497079465 31% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0332432064986 0.0662205650399 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0615184953661 0.162205337803 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0312592515404 0.0443174109184 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => 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: 11.84 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.