Because of climate change, more and more land that was once used to grow crops or provide food for animals is turning to dry, unusable desert land. There are many proposals about how to stop this process, known as desertification. A number of proposals involve growing trees, because trees can help protect soil and provide many other benefits to fight against desertification. Some scientists have proposed that the best way to grow trees in dry areas in danger of desertification is by using a box-shaped device surrounding the young tree. The device collects water that condenses from vapor in the atmosphere and helps the tree to grow. However, other scientists believe that this device will not be successful in fighting against desertification for the following reasons.
First, at a cost of 25 U S. dollars each, the device would make growing trees a prohibitively expensive process. Meaningful efforts to fight desertification involve growing millions of trees. Some countries most affected by desertification cannot afford to buy devices for millions of trees
Second, plans for fighting desertification involve asking local people to install and maintain the devices. People living in some of the areas most affected by desertification work long days in harsh conditions: sometimes barely managing to provide food for their families. It would be difficult to motivate these people to look after trees that cannot serve as a source of food for them.
Third, the device's ability to collect and conserve water is limited. Each one provides only enough water to keep a small tree alive. Trees that have outgrown the device have to deal with unforgiving environmental conditions on their own. In some places where the devices are being tried, six months can pass without a drop of rain. Once the trees become too big for the device, they may not be able to survive in such a harsh environment.
The article introduces one way proposed to stop desertification. A box-shaped device that helps in growing young trees. The author makes three points against this idea, but the lecturer argues against each of them with valid reasonings.
First, the passage points that based on the amount of boxes needed to fight desertification, and the high price of each device some countries may be incapable of affording them, but the lecturer argues that, after the tree is grown the device can be removed and then used to grow other trees. The device can be deployed at least twenty more times, making it a lot less txing for the countries in need to afford them.
Second, the author says that local people are called upon to install and maintain the devices, but in most cases the locals live and work in harsh conditions and would not be motivated to do such jobs without any rewards. The lecturer discusses ways to encourage the locals into maintaining the devices, saying that there can be benefits like local families using the water gathered by devices to grow their own small fields, and using the branches of the grown trees as fire wood.
Third, the passage brings to attention that the devices ability is limited to conserving a small tree but the lecturer points out that the matured trees can survive without the device due to developing long roots, pointing out that 90 percent of trees grown in Sahara desert survived and are thriving even after two years of device removal.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 49, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'devices'' or 'device's'?
Suggestion: devices'; device's
...he passage brings to attention that the devices ability is limited to conserving a smal...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, may, second, so, then, third, at least, in most cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => 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: 1228.0 1373.03311258 89% => OK
No of words: 255.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.81568627451 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99608801488 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.3927868023 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.6 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 372.6 419.366225166 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => 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: 31.0 21.2450331126 146% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 101.635300831 49.2860985944 206% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 153.5 110.228320801 139% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.875 21.698381199 147% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.625 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0656286087631 0.272083759551 24% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0376099941971 0.0996497079465 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0307951162906 0.0662205650399 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0425143187064 0.162205337803 26% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0257211111742 0.0443174109184 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 13.3589403974 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.47 53.8541721854 90% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.27 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 10.498013245 137% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.