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. Clearing large areas of vegetation in places where diseased trees are found is often an efficient measure to stop the spread of infections.
Both the reading passage and the lecture discuss methods of protecting the forests from P. ramorum. The passage mentions three methods that can protect the forests. However, the professor in the lecture casts doubt on all the methods mentioned in the passage. Instead, she claims that all of them are impractical.
First of all, the passage states that P. ramorum spores can be spread by human activity, so encouraging hikers to wash their shoes and installing new bike scrubbers on bicycle trails would be effective to stop the spread. Nevertheless, the professor denies the passage by pointing out that P. ramorum spores spread mainly by the rainfall. Rainfall can wash the spores to the stream and transport them in long distance, which is harder to prevent.
Secondly, the passage mentions that fungicidal chemicals can be a solution for protecting the oak trees, since they can stimulate the oak trees' natural defenses against the P. ramorum. Notwithstanding, the professor disagrees with the passage. She said that the chemicals have to be injected into the oak trees directly, and they only last for few months. Thus, forest managers have to inject thousands of them every few months, which is really expensive and impractical.
Finally, the passage suggests that clear-cutting is another practice. Although it may affect other healthy trees, it can completely wipe out P. ramorum in a giving area. However, the professor refutes the passage by arguing that there are many rare tree species in the western United States, this practice could affect them as well. Since they cannot grow back easily, this practice could cause greater damage to the environment.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, may, nevertheless, really, second, secondly, so, thus, well, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1405.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 270.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2037037037 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05360046442 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63041459333 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.559259259259 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 412.2 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.0090128255 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.0555555556 110.228320801 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.0 21.698381199 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.44444444444 7.06452816374 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.169824704547 0.272083759551 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0442155393778 0.0996497079465 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0500284868342 0.0662205650399 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0965434220849 0.162205337803 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0353308149235 0.0443174109184 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 13.3589403974 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 53.8541721854 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.29 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.