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.
In the set of materials, the main topic of the reading passage and the listening passage is methods that are using against P.ramorum effects. The article states that three very effective ways to protect the rainforest. However, in the listening passage, the professor contradicts the idea of the reading passage by presenting the results of research and stating his opinion.
First of all, the reading passage claims that P. ramorum spore usually found along with hiking or biking, so if we can encourage them to wash their shoes or bike it would be an effective way. On the other hand, the professor refutes this point by saying that cleaning shoes and bikes did not have a huge impact. Because spore of P. remorum tends to spread through the water stream. Furthermore, the water stream is the keystone of the rainforest, thus it will spread with speed of light around the rainforest. According to the professor, just cleaning human stuff cannot be an effective method against spreading.
Second, it described in the reading passage that there are a few chemicals that can be work against P. ramorum fungus. However, the professor says that these chemicals will affect only for few months. Moreover, this chemical protection will work efficiently only for trees in the city, they won't work on the rainforest. Because trees in the rainforest are countless and human can not inject every single tree of rainforest repeatedly in every month, also it will take a lot of funding. This means this method can not work in one way to protect the forest.
Lastly, the reading article says that another way to protect the forest is a practice called clear-cutting. Besides, this method will cut down burning and diseased oaks. The professor opposes this point by explaining that some of the vegetation is not healthy and it destroys the rainforest anyway. Furthermore, these grow rare in Western United Stated and that means it is difficult to get back. As the professor asserts, using this method can not lead us to the right protection way.
In conclusion, the professor contradicts the examples of method use against P. rumorum in the reading passage by presenting results of the research on the same topic and stating her own opinion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 166, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ramorum effects. The article states that three very effective ways to protect the...
^^
Line 3, column 313, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...s and bikes did not have a huge impact. Because spore of P. remorum tends to spread thr...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 223, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...r opposes this point by explaining that some of the vegetation is not healthy and it destro...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 196, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...same topic and stating her own opinion.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, anyway, besides, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, moreover, second, so, thus, in conclusion, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 30.3222958057 155% => 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: 1868.0 1373.03311258 136% => OK
No of words: 375.0 270.72406181 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98133333333 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40055868397 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58474155166 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 145.348785872 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.488 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 554.4 419.366225166 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 13.0662251656 168% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.4890810684 49.2860985944 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.9090909091 110.228320801 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0454545455 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.27272727273 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.27373068433 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0732343980018 0.272083759551 27% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0319693786215 0.0996497079465 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0725474406502 0.0662205650399 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0389160101687 0.162205337803 24% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0223337888017 0.0443174109184 50% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 13.3589403974 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.64 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.