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.
Both the author and the lecturer discuss whether box-shaped devices can fight against desertification or not. The passage claims that box-like devices are not utilitarian systems for preventing from desertification. The professor, on the other hand, completely rejects whatever mentioned in the reading through citing three reasons.
First, both the author and the professor talk about cost of using box-like devices. According to the passage, the process of environment conservation by using these devices would be very expensive and some countries cannot afford such costs. The lecturer, nevertheless, rejects author's view and illustrates the idea that the device can be reused for twenty times. By doing so, the cost of growing trees is reasonable.
Secondly, both the reading and the lecture discuss asking people's help. The passage argues that government have to ask local people to set and preserve the devices. people would not accept to look after trees because they cannot benefit from growing trees. However, the professor refutes this, saying that farmers can benefit from this project. water collected from this project can be used in vegetable irrigation and trees' branches can provide local people with wood for fire. therefore, local people can take advantages of caring for trees.
Eventually, both the passage and the lecture address the subject of harsh environment. The passage goes on to mention that the devices can provide trees with a little water, so trees may not be able to survive in harsh environment. In contrast, the professor points out that the young trees emit long roots which can take moist from depth of soil in underground in harsh environment. For example, in Sahara desert, ninety percent of trees started thriving after 2 years. therefore, box-shaped devices could be removed because of its self-sufficiency.
All in all, the author maintain the idea that box-like devices are not suitable for stopping desertification, while the professor not only cast doubt on, but he also demonstrates that these devices can help reduce desertification.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 166, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: People
...people to set and preserve the devices. people would not accept to look after trees be...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 346, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Water
... farmers can benefit from this project. water collected from this project can be used...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 480, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Therefore
...rovide local people with wood for fire. therefore, local people can take advantages of ca...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 472, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Therefore
...f trees started thriving after 2 years. therefore, box-shaped devices could be removed be...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, for example, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 5.04856512141 297% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1774.0 1373.03311258 129% => OK
No of words: 327.0 270.72406181 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.4250764526 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81463876201 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553516819572 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 530.1 419.366225166 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.4228343906 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.3684210526 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2105263158 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.31578947368 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less 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: 0.0885567668815 0.272083759551 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0300276293697 0.0996497079465 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0244148435461 0.0662205650399 37% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0526744123325 0.162205337803 32% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0181920084665 0.0443174109184 41% => 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: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.