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 is about the possible ways to save the western United States forest from the rage of P. ramorum. It provides three supporting ideas in order to bolster its claim. However, the professor says, these ways are rather ineffective and also worsening the situation. She refutes each of the passage reasoning.
First, the article asserts that preventing the dispersement of P. ramorum spores is an effective treatment. But, the lecturer denies this theory. She explains, these spores are not just spread only by humans assistance. According to the study, during rainy season, they are carried out by the rain water and washed into the stream in the long distance. Moreover, the spore spread by water is harder to control.
Second, the reading states that it is possible to protect oak tree by injecting fungicidal. However, the narrator refutes this proposition. She describes, the fungicidal injection works only when it is injected into the trunk of the tree. In addition, the effects of the injection last only few months and the process needs to be repeated. Furthermore, this approach is not practical as it is works only a part of the forest because injecting each and every oak tree is rather expensive and impractical task.
Third, the written excerpt claims that the approach of clear cutting is an effective way to curb the bad effects of P. ramorum. This position is incoherent with the professors view. She says, when destroying vegetation, some healthy and rare species of tree might have been chance to eliminate. Moreover, there are many rare species are present in western United States that fall in great danger and causes an ecological disaster to the whole forest.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 202, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...hese spores are not just spread only by humans assistance. According to the study, dur...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, moreover, second, so, third, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1420.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 280.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07142857143 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09062348924 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59798783991 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564285714286 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 432.9 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.5479748523 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 74.7368421053 110.228320801 68% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.7368421053 21.698381199 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.21052631579 7.06452816374 60% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.175961882443 0.272083759551 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0383995064843 0.0996497079465 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0523162351809 0.0662205650399 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0962717690061 0.162205337803 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.031339087513 0.0443174109184 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.8 13.3589403974 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.73 53.8541721854 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.53 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 4.5 10.7273730684 42% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.