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 to several ways that have been suggesting for protecting them. In the listening part, however, the speaker challenges what the author states and rebuts the reasons by indicate that the reasons would be ineffective.
To begin with, as mentioned in the article, the author sets forth that it could stop spreading if people pay more attention to their shows and clean their shoes, or clean the fungus from their bike. Nevertheless, in the listening part, the speaker refutes the reasons asserting that they probably have benefits, but it could not be effective very much and it does not hug impact on spreading them. In addition, spreading by water, controlling of the water that washes them would be hard.
Secondly, the author points out that chemical stimulation with injection to the trees which produce natural defenses against disease, might be helpful; nonetheless, the author flatly contradicts the idea and contends that injection in the urban arias could be happened; whereas, there are enormous forest that people cannot inject to each of the tree separately and also in it would be costly. Indeed, should government inject to trees directly, it would be slow and is not long lasted and it just stays for few months in small regions.
Finally, the author claims that clear-cutting vegetables and bushes around illness trees could be one of those solutions which they can clean large arias from infections; in contrast, the professor is of the opinion that it does not make sense or it could affect the trees that they are already rare and near to extinct; therefore, it could destroy variety of species and could infect healthy trees rather than unhealthy ones.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, whereas, in addition, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 5.04856512141 297% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1534.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 305.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02950819672 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47262681468 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.560655737705 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 441.0 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 30.0 21.2450331126 141% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 124.19214951 49.2860985944 252% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 153.4 110.228320801 139% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.5 21.698381199 141% => OK
Discourse Markers: 14.1 7.06452816374 200% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.074174267219 0.272083759551 27% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0504923866143 0.0996497079465 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112130933554 0.0662205650399 169% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0454020772036 0.162205337803 28% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0267540076372 0.0443174109184 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 13.3589403974 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.95 53.8541721854 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 11.0289183223 114% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.49 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.498013245 133% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.