Essay topics: In the United States, it had been common practice since the late 1960s no to suppress natural forest fires. The “let it burn” policy assumed that forest fire would burn themselves out quickly, without causing much damage. However, in the summer of 1988, forest fires in Yellowstone, the most famous national park in the country, burned for more than two months and spread over a huge area, encompassing more than 800,000 acres. Because of the large scale of the damage, many people called for replacing the “let it burn” policy with a policy of extinguishing forest fires as soon as they appeared. Three kinds of damage caused by the “let it burn” policy were emphasized by critics of the policy.
First, Yellowstone fires caused tremendous damage to the park’s trees and other vegetation. When the fires finally died out, nearly one third of Yellowstone’s land had been scorched. Trees were charred and blackened from flames and smoke. Smaller plants were entirely incinerated. What had been a national treasure now seemed like a devastated wasteland.
Second, the park wildlife was affected as well. Large animals like deer and elk were seen fleeing the fire. Many smaller species were probably unable to escape. There was also concern that the destruction of habitats and the disruption of food chains would make it impossible for the animals that survived the fire to return.
Third, the fires compromised the value of the park as a tourist attraction, which in turn had negative consequences for the local economy. With several thousand acres of the park engulfed in flames, the tourist season was cut short, and a large number of visitors decided to stay away. Of course, local businesses that depended on park visitors suffered as a result.
The article and the lecturer are both about policy of "let it burn". The author of reading feels that this policy is bad and its help to make more damage of forests. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. The lecturer thinks this policy fundamentally good.
First of all, the author argues that fire caused tremendous damage to the park's tees and the other vegetation. The article is mentioned that smaller plants were entirely incinerated. This point challenged by the lecturer. He claims its help to create an opportunity to diverse certain plants that could not grow before. Furthermore, he says that certain plants germinate to explore to high level of heat.
Secondly, he suggests that this fire effect to the park wildlife. The article notes that many smaller animals to unable to escape while having fire. The lecturer rebuts this argument. He suggests that fire also created new opportunities to certain animals for habitats. He elaborates this by mentioning that food chains become stinger after the fire than they were before.
Finally, he states that fire compromised the value of the park as a tourist attraction. Moreover, the article says its negative consequences for the local economy. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that according to above mention information help to recover forests fast. He says fire the forest won’t be in every year and it was very unusual combination factor to get reduce of tourism in the country.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 177, 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.
...ts help to make more damage of forests. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Line 1, column 232, 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.
...allenges the claims made by the author. The lecturer thinks this policy fundamental...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, while, in contrast, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1244.0 1373.03311258 91% => OK
No of words: 242.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.14049586777 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94415379849 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64731268701 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.570247933884 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 393.3 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 25.5927265902 49.2860985944 52% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 69.1111111111 110.228320801 63% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.4444444444 21.698381199 62% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06452816374 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.112175521243 0.272083759551 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0356077185042 0.0996497079465 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0578306400574 0.0662205650399 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0719265931913 0.162205337803 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0436345814362 0.0443174109184 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.5 13.3589403974 71% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.28 53.8541721854 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.94 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 63.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.0 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.