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 claims that the box-shaped device would not be successful against desertification and he gives three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that this idea is unconvincing and it is worthwhile to use the device and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading posits that it is an expensive process to use the device as the efforts involve growing millions of trees. The professor refutes this by stating that the device can be reused once the tree becomes bigger. He explains that the device can be used for twenty times or even more. According to him, if we divide the number of device used by total number of trees that the device served, we can conclude that the price becomes reasonable.
Second, the author states that it is difficult to motivate people to maintain the trees that would not be a source of food for them. However, the professor argues that this process will provide reward to people. He further explains that the device can be used to collect water not only for trees but also for other plants which will provide food. Further, once the trees produce branches, those branches can be used as firewood. Hence, in a way, people are rewarded with food and firewood.
Third, the reading explains the limited ability of device to collect and preserve water, providing enough water to keep only a small tree alive. The professor opposes this by saying that once the tree becomes big, it can survive harsh conditions even after the removal of device. He further mentions that the device hepls the trees to grow long roots which reaches to the moist soil beneath the dry desert surface. Once it reaches there, the tree survives for some more years.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, second, so, third, while
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 : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1414.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 293.0 270.72406181 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82593856655 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.30554601035 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.501706484642 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 437.4 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.3439845 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.2666666667 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5333333333 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.13333333333 7.06452816374 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.155957872776 0.272083759551 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0638407952929 0.0996497079465 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0321003587343 0.0662205650399 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0986474278942 0.162205337803 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.031008426806 0.0443174109184 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => 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: 10.73 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.97 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.