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 passage and the lecture both discuss the problem of P. ramorum and damages that it has on oak trees. In the reading part, the author mentions that several ways have been suggesting for protecting them. In the listening part, however, the speaker challenges what the author ststes and rebuts the reasons.
To begin with, as mentoned in the article, the author sets forth that it could stop spreading if people pay more attention to their shows and cleaning them or cleane the fungies from their bick. Nevertheless, in the listening part, the speaker refutes the reasons asserting that it probebly have benefits, but it coud not be effective very much and it does not hug impact on spreading them. In addition, water spread them and controling of water that wash them would be hard.
Secondly, the author points out that chemical stimulation with injection to the trees might be helpful; nonetheless, the author flatly sontradicts the idea and contends that injection in the urban eria could be happend, whereas, there are enormous forest that people cannot inject to each of the tree speratly and also in it would be costely.
Finally, the author claims that clear-cuttind could be one of the solutions; in contrast, the professor is of the opinion that it does not make sense or it could enffect on the trees that they are already rare and near to extinct; therefor, it could destroy variety of species and could has inffect on healty trees rather than unhealthy ones.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 288, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'have'
Suggestion: have
...ld destroy variety of species and could has inffect on healty trees rather than unh...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, whereas, in addition, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1238.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 252.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.9126984127 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98428260373 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45710235396 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56746031746 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 356.4 419.366225166 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 107.213989321 49.2860985944 218% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 137.555555556 110.228320801 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0 21.698381199 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 14.4444444444 7.06452816374 204% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0576020079104 0.272083759551 21% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0491880466353 0.0996497079465 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.118648274891 0.0662205650399 179% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0376414667038 0.162205337803 23% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.033265000726 0.0443174109184 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.98 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.8 11.0289183223 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.