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.
Last try:07/30/2019 05:14
Word Count: 37
In the lecture, the professor believes that using a box-shaped device surrounding trees is an effective method to prevent further damage of land’s soil and protect crops from desertification. On other hand, the writer states that such tactic would not be successful.
To begin with, the lecturer states that strategy would not cost much. In fact, if we take into account that once a young tree gets bigger inside the device, the device can be removed and reused to another trees. Moreover, each instrument can be used more than twenty times; thus, if we divide the cost of one device by the number of trees that could use it for. Consequently, the cost would become reasonable. This casts doubt on the reading which states that some countries, cannot implement the method because the overall process is expensive.
In addition, the speaker claims that locals can benefit from installing and maintaining the tools. This is because when farmer collect water not just for the trees also for other plants such as vegetables. Furthermore, once the tress become larger their branches can be used for firewood. Therefore, such advantages would motivate farmers to participate in the project. This opposes the article which claims that people living in the affected areas would not be interested.
Finally, the professor states that the device can provide a great amount of water to trees. This is due that the device helps trees grow roots to reach underground moist water. Moreover, when scholars conducted the tactic in Sahara Desert, they found that 90 percent of trees still alive for two years after removing the instrument. This contradicts the author which states that when trees get bigger and removed from the machine, they may not be capable to withstand brutal conditions.
In conclusion, the lecturer holds a different opinion from the author, and believes such method is successful to resolve the stated problem.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...such tactic would not be successful. To begin with, the lecturer states that ...
^^^
Line 10, column 488, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...capable to withstand brutal conditions. In conclusion, the lecturer holds a diff...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, furthermore, if, may, moreover, so, still, therefore, thus, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1631.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 315.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17777777778 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56171002977 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565079365079 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 480.6 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.4164036475 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.9411764706 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5294117647 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.70588235294 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.126187326461 0.272083759551 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0375122754457 0.0996497079465 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0386074756729 0.0662205650399 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0642564125749 0.162205337803 40% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0344186930204 0.0443174109184 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.