the decline of yellow cedar
What has been proposed in the reading passage are three hypotheses that may be able to explain the decline of yellow cedar. However, none of these could convince the lecture speaker, who counters them with strong reasons.
One of the hypotheses is that yellow cedar may have been killed by the cedar bark beetle. Nonetheless, the lecture speaker disputes this hypothesis and claims that yellow cedars are, in fact, more resistance to insects. Yellow cedars are able to secrete a special chemical compound which is toxic to the cedar bark beetles, therefore, insects are not the cause of the yellow-cedar decline.
The reading passage also mentions that bears may be the cause of the yellow-cedar decline. The author thinks that the damages brought by a bear clawing the tree bark may weaken the tree. The lecturer, again, counters this by arguing that even the yellow cedars that live on the island, which have no bear habitats in, are declining. As a result, this hypothesis is faulty.
The last hypothesis given by the reading passage suggests that climate change may have caused the decline of yellow cedars. As the temperatures change in northwestern North America, yellow cedars start to grow their surface roots, which are sensitive and vulnerable to cold temperatures, during the winter instead of the spring. The lecturer, nevertheless, contends that the decline of yellow cedars is more serious in warmer locations rather than cooler ones, which is contradictory to the hypothesis. Therefore, this hypothesis fails to explain this phenomenon.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 188, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...wing the tree bark may weaken the tree. The lecturer, again, counters this by argui...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, so, therefore, in fact, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => 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: 1310.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21912350598 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64019909467 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.525896414343 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 402.3 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.8258959391 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.769230769 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3076923077 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.30769230769 7.06452816374 89% => 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 : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.497675272841 0.272083759551 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.181031967269 0.0996497079465 182% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.138948737961 0.0662205650399 210% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.30980088913 0.162205337803 191% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.1009990912 0.0443174109184 228% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.