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 reading asserts that using a box-shaped device can not be helpful for growing trees in areas that are in danger of desertification. The lecturer, however, finds the idea dubious and casts doubt on the reasons proposed by the reading passage.
The author argues that using the device is an expensive process. Each device costs 25 dollars, and there are millions of trees. Using a device for each tree costs a lot. Conversely, the lecture brings up the idea that devices can be reused. As the young trees become bigger, they can remove the device and use it for another young tree. Each device can be used over 20 times or more. By reusing the devices, the costs remain reasonable.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that it is hard to motivate local people to take care of trees that are not a source of food for them. On the contrary, the speaker underlines the fact that the devices can benefit local people too. They can collect water for other plants like vegetables. Also, when the trees become large enough, people can use trees' branches as firewoods. So, there is enough motivation for local people to install and maintain the devices.
Finally, the reading asserts that the devices' ability to collect and conserve water is limited, and they can only keep small trees alive. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that the device can survive bigger trees by letting them grow long roots while they are younger. These routes reach moist soil and lie under the desert surface. So they can stay. For instance, in the Sahara desert, 95 percent of the trees still live after two years without using the device.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...sons proposed by the reading passage. The author argues that using the device is ...
^^^
Line 4, column 39, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'devices'' or 'device's'?
Suggestion: devices'; device's
... Finally, the reading asserts that the devices ability to collect and conserve water i...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, finally, furthermore, however, if, so, still, while, for instance, in contrast, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => 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: 1368.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.75 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.25067505306 2.5805825403 87% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548611111111 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 421.2 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.3478032829 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 72.0 110.228320801 65% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.1578947368 21.698381199 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.94736842105 7.06452816374 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.27373068433 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0932430082957 0.272083759551 34% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0339332962882 0.0996497079465 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0285039076248 0.0662205650399 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0640030051705 0.162205337803 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0152485571247 0.0443174109184 34% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.5 13.3589403974 64% => 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: 9.68 12.2367328918 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.72 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => 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?
---------------------
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.