Every year, forest fires and severe storms cause a great deal of damage to forests in the northwestern United States. One way of dealing with the aftermath of these disasters is called salvage logging, which is the practice of removing dead trees from affected areas and using the wood for lumber, plywood, and other wood products. There are several reasons why salvage logging is beneficial both to a damaged forest and to the economy.
First, after a devastating fire, forests are choked with dead trees. If the trees are not removed, they will take years to decompose; in the meantime, no new trees can grow in the cramped spaces. Salvage logging, however, removes the remains of dead trees and makes room for fresh growth immediately, which is likely to help forest areas recover from the disaster.
Also, dead trees do more than just take up space. Decaying wood is a highly suitable habitat for insects such as the spruce bark beetle, which in large numbers can damage live, healthy spruce trees. So by removing rotting wood, salvage logging helps minimize the dangers of insect infestation, thus contributing to the health of the forest.
Third and last, salvage logging has economic benefits. Many industries depend upon the forests for their production, and because of this a fire can have a very harmful effect on the economy. Often, however, the trees that have been damaged by natural disasters still can provide much wood that is usable by industries. Furthermore, salvage logging requires more workers than traditional logging operations do, and so it helps create additional jobs for local residents.
Both the reading and lecture discuss about salvage logging, which is method of eradicating dead tress from severe affected areas and using the wood for making wide range of wood items. The former argues that salvage logging is good approach, there are three benefits to doing so, but latter challenges each of these points.
First of all, the author of passage asserts that salvage logging is helping after damaging of forest by eliminating of dead woods which help to cover the novice vegetation and revive the forest again. However, the professor in lecture contends that it does not hold true because in long term the salvage logging does not work. In fact, dead woods add further nutrients to the soil by natural decomposition process. On other hand, removing dead decomposable tree is nonsensical.
Secondly, according to the passage, the expert opined that, unless these spruce bark beetle insects kill, the healthy forest is dream, so eradication of insects helps to bring healthy surrounding in the forest. In contrast, the lecture objects this idea. She support her argument by presenting the example of spruce bark beetles and other birds which live in decaying wood, but contributes in long-run to form active forest.
Finally, the passage claims that salvage logging has economic benefits as it requires huge indigenous people to operate which create job opportunities for native people. Nevertheless, like two suggestions before, the professor in her lecture proclaims that this recommendation is not feasible because to operate this operation traditional operations does not work, and need experts. Moreover, the job is also only temporary rather than permanent for local people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 92, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ed that, unless these spruce bark beetle insects kill, the healthy forest is drea...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, in contrast, in fact, 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 : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1434.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 269.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33085501859 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60893454004 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.624535315985 0.540411800872 116% => OK
syllable_count: 439.2 419.366225166 105% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.4267649562 49.2860985944 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.5 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4166666667 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.66666666667 7.06452816374 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
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: 0.188361068823 0.272083759551 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0626566180129 0.0996497079465 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0515424346799 0.0662205650399 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109729000641 0.162205337803 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0554748447653 0.0443174109184 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.93 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.48 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.