forest fires in Yellowstone "let it burn" policy
The article states that the "let it burn" policy led to the vast damage in 1988 when forests in Yellowstone were burned. Also, the reading says that the police should be replaced by other policy. However, the speaker explains that forest fires are like double-edged sword since they have advantages for both flora and fauna.
To begin with, the passage insists that fires destroyed trees and vegetation. Nonetheless, the lecturer opposes this point by explaining that fires allow to grow new, small plants because of some species cannot grow in shadow. Besides that, there are plants whose seeds should be impacted by high heat to wake up and start growing. Both of them are beneficiaries of fires.
What is more, the reading reports that dees, elks suffer from fire. Furthermore, small species may be unable to escape, that the second negative aspect of fires. Still, the listening contends this point by explaining that animals get new opportunity to develop after fires. According to the speaker, rabbits and hairs eat small plants that are the major vegetations after fires. Those animals attract predators, so fires can create an environment for the development of species that were not able to do it before.
In addition, the article claims that the tourists industry lose a lot of money for fires. It happens because of visitors do not come to the park at the time of fires. Nevertheless, the lecture asserts that massive fires are rare events. In the lecture said that tourists can visit in a year after the fire. So, in the long run, the "let it burn" policy do not pose a risk for tourists potential of regions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 155, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'growing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'allow' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: growing
...is point by explaining that fires allow to grow new, small plants because of some speci...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 42, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'tourists'' or 'tourist's'?
Suggestion: tourists'; tourist's
...n addition, the article claims that the tourists industry lose a lot of money for fires....
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, furthermore, however, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, still, in addition, to begin with, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1374.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 277.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96028880866 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07962216107 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49554856598 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581227436823 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 423.9 419.366225166 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
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: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.2656699352 49.2860985944 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 80.8235294118 110.228320801 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2941176471 21.698381199 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.52941176471 7.06452816374 107% => 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 : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.291353482409 0.272083759551 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0766945521776 0.0996497079465 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.141820434013 0.0662205650399 214% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178567711001 0.162205337803 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.147130486953 0.0443174109184 332% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.1 13.3589403974 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.19 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.