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 asserts that there are some approaches to keeping the forests from infection of Phytophthora ramorum, a microscopic fungus that infects trees and has a significant drawback on the oak trees. The lecture, however, finds the idea dubious and casts debates on the reasons proposed by the reading passage.
First, the author argues that infection of the P. ramorum can be prevented by stopping the spores from spreading through the human assistant. This human assistant can be done throughout washing shoes and replacement of bike scrubbers by new ones. Conversely, the lecturer brings the intention that although these human activities are beneficial, totally human assistance does not have a conspicuous impact on the spread of P. ramorum. P. ramorum pick up with rainfall and spread throughout the water streams. Therefore, it is hard to control.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that the application of fungicidal chemicals can be effective in protecting oak trees. On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that this method is not applicable since all the trees of the region should be repeatedly injected which increases the costs.
Finally, the reading asserts that diseased and infected oak trees had better be cut and burned which results in burning the seemingly healthy vegetation. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that destroying the healthy vegetation seems to be irrational since there are a lot of rare vegetation species that might be endangered and this method will have a negative impact the healthy trees. Also, from an economic point of view, this approach might cause big damage.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, so, therefore, in contrast, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1406.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 266.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28571428571 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03850299372 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74793258156 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.578947368421 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 414.9 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.2506051612 49.2860985944 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.153846154 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4615384615 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.92307692308 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.190521836465 0.272083759551 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0670027985577 0.0996497079465 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0962174756587 0.0662205650399 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120697139349 0.162205337803 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0862041172112 0.0443174109184 195% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.5 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27 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.