cheatgrass damage solution | TOEFL IELTS GMAT GRE SAT ACT PTE ESL

Essay topics:

cheatgrass damage solution

The reading passage talks about cheatgrass, an invasive plant that caused lots of damage in North America, and several solutions are given to solve these problems. As reasonable and practical as these points seem, the professor in the lecture casts doubt on them, indicating that they are unlikely to work very well.
To begin with, the author suggests that we can release cattle and other livestock on the cheatgrass-prevailed field to let them consume cheatgrass. Therefore, there will be space for native grass to flourish. Conversely, disputing the reading's point, the lecturer claims that these grazers don't prefer cheatgrass. Instead of eating cheatgrass, they probably will first graze the native plants intended to be protected. Therefore, the lecturer believes this solution will bring opposite side effects.
Second, even though the author proposes that we can burn cheatgrass with controlled fire because of its highly flammable characteristic, the lecturer argues that it's a misconception. This is because cheatgrass can produce many seeds, and some seeds will be pushed below the ground's surface. Since the fire can only eliminate the grass and the seed that stay above the surface, the seeds that remain underground won't be harmed and can still germinate after the fire. Accordingly, the lecturer dismisses this solution.
Last but not least, the lecturer acutely identifies a weakness in the passage that we can introduce a fungal parasite that can pose negative impacts on cheatgrass in North America. She points out that cheatgrass has developed strong resistance to this fungus since they have lived together for thousands of years in their native place, meaning that the fungus might only be able to infect weak and sickly cheatgrass in the field. As a result, the lecturer asserts that this method will not be efficient.

Votes

Essay Categories

Integrated TOEFL Writing

Comments

Essay evaluations by e-grader

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 290, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... the lecturer claims that these grazers dont prefer cheatgrass. Instead of eating ch...
^^^^
Line 3, column 163, Rule ID: IT_IS[17]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...haracteristic, the lecturer argues that its a misconception. This is because cheatg...
^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, conversely, first, if, second, so, still, therefore, well, as a result, to begin with

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1551.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 293.0 270.72406181 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29351535836 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74275775906 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.600682593857 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 466.2 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.6775333484 49.2860985944 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.785714286 110.228320801 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9285714286 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.35714285714 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.241703818306 0.272083759551 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0768217042177 0.0996497079465 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0782517134577 0.0662205650399 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1471616168 0.162205337803 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0606742546373 0.0443174109184 137% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.

Essay evaluations by e-grader

Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, conversely, first, if, second, so, still, therefore, well, as a result, to begin with

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments