The reading and the lecture are both about a device that helps trees grow in desert areas by providing them with water from the atmosphere. While the author of the article argues that this device might be useless and may not be able to fight against desertification, the professor disputes this claim. She states that none of the reasons made in the reading passage is convincing, and utilizing this device in the deserts is worthful. The lecturer casts doubt on the main points mentioned in the writing by providing three controversial reasons.
In the text, the author begins by saying that this device is so expensive and using it for millions of trees is not cost-effective. However, the professor disagrees with this idea. She asserts that this device can be used only for young trees, and as soon as the tree grows, the device can be removed and could be used for another young tree. Each of these devices has the capability to be used over twenty times. So, in this way, its cost becomes reasonable.
Furthermore, according to the essay, local people do not have the time to install these devices and maintain them since they are too involved in their daily duties. They might be reluctant to look after a device that would not provide food for them. On the other hand, the professor points out that maintaining these devices yields possible rewards for the indigenous people. These devices collect water not only for the trees but also for other plants and vegetation. Therefore, local people can use these devices for their plants and produce more food. In addition, they can use the branches of the grown trees as firewood. These two advantages might motivate local people to maintain and install these devices.
Finally, the writer believes that as the trees grow, these devices become useless because they cannot provide the required water for a grown-up tree. Not surprisingly, the lecturer refutes this assertion by contending that a grown-up tree has a complex root system by which it can access deep water sources under the desert, so it can survive without the device. For instance, in the Sahara desert, after these devices had been removed, ninety percent of the trees remained thriving for a period of two years.
To sum up, both the lecturer and the author hold conflicting views on the efficacy of the suggested device.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, furthermore, however, if, look, may, so, therefore, while, for instance, in addition, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 22.412803532 183% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 30.3222958057 155% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1955.0 1373.03311258 142% => OK
No of words: 399.0 270.72406181 147% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.89974937343 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46933824581 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45671314481 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 145.348785872 137% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498746867168 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 602.1 419.366225166 144% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 2.5761589404 311% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.4651621921 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.75 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.95 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.7 7.06452816374 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.125374633291 0.272083759551 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0464173975014 0.0996497079465 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.031023047169 0.0662205650399 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0689291902439 0.162205337803 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0345877122977 0.0443174109184 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.14 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 63.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.0 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.