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 states that it is not reasonable to use some box-like devices to grow trees and prevent desertification. However, the professor finds all the ideas dubious and presents some evidence to refute them.
First, the reading claims that using these devices to make growing millions of trees costs too much, and some countries cannot afford that expense. However, the professor explains that using these devices is profitable because the trees will grow after a while, and the devices can be reused for other trees, and the total expenditure becomes more rational.
Second, the reading argues that this project needs the help of local people to install and maintain the devices, but the people who cannot even provide food for their families would not care about such things that do not give them food. In contrast, the professor opposes this point by saying that people can be encouraged to help in this project and preserve devices if they receive rewards. For example, they can benefit from the water these devices produce to irrigate their vegetables and produce food. In addition, they can use the branches of trees to make a fire.
Third, the reading suggests that the devices can provide limited water for the trees, which is inappropriate for harsh climates. The professor casts doubt on this idea and states that young trees have long roots with the help of the box-like device, so they can find the source of water underground and survive.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, so, third, while, for example, in addition, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => 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: 1220.0 1373.03311258 89% => OK
No of words: 244.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.95227774224 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.33593614827 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.540983606557 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 367.2 419.366225166 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.4238039025 49.2860985944 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.0 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4 21.698381199 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.8 7.06452816374 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.114710789772 0.272083759551 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0481792792537 0.0996497079465 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0305825224333 0.0662205650399 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0690161472083 0.162205337803 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0269517766007 0.0443174109184 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.