causes of cedar trees' population decrease
The reading and the passage are both about the likely threatens responsible for decline in yellow cedar population. Accordingly, the author discusses three theories about the fundamental reasons that have caused this decrease. On the other hand, the professor is not convinced of this and casts doubt on each of the claims. The lecturer is of the opinion that none of the mentioned theories is adequate.
To begin with, the author argues that cedar bark beetle can be the cause. Moreover, the author points out that this beetle attacks trees in order to eat the wood. This specific argument is challenged by the lecture. According to the professor, healthy cedar trees contain a kind of chemical substance which is seems poisonous for beetle. Therefore, beetles are not capable of hurting healthy trees and only attack already damaged trees which will be demolished any way.
Secondly, the writer disputes that, brown bears are the next candidate for the reason of the loss of trees. To delineate, since tree bark involves high sugar content bears claw trees aggressively in order to eat this sugar and these attacks weaken and dim the trees. In contrast, the professor’s stance is that bears only live in main land and seems scars in islands. However, trees’ population that are not existed in bears habitats are declining. Hence, bears cannot account for the extension.
Finally, the author averts that gradual climate changes seems to be blamed for the extinction. As it is mentioned in the article, the pattern of day-to-day temperature has caused the tree roots grow in frozen seasons. The lecturer position is that although roots are sensitive to freezing damage however, evidence indicates that roots in lower elevations which are warmer have tendency to die more than ones in the cooler elevations. So, freezing hypothesis is not accurate as long as roots stay alive more profoundly in colder and higher elevations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 228, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...reasons that have caused this decrease. On the other hand, the professor is not ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, finally, hence, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, in contrast, kind of, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1617.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 316.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11708860759 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56333606774 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.556962025316 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 493.2 419.366225166 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.5521448155 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.8333333333 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5555555556 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.72222222222 7.06452816374 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 4.45695364238 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.204908898345 0.272083759551 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0551614090832 0.0996497079465 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0630317447432 0.0662205650399 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10353621399 0.162205337803 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0430630210717 0.0443174109184 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.12 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.