Genetic modification, a process used to change an organism’s genes and hence its characteristics, is now being used to improve trees. Through genetic modification, it is possible to create trees that produce more fruits, grow faster, or withstand adverse conditions. Planting genetically modified trees on a large scale promises to bring a number of benefits.
Firstly, genetically modified trees are designed to be hardier than nature trees; that is, they are more likely to survive than their unmodified counterparts. In Hawaii, for example, a new pest-resistant species of papaya trees has been developed in response to ringspot virus infections that have repeatedly damaged the native papaya tree population. Planting the genetically modified papayas has largely put an end to the ringspot problem.
Moreover, genetically modified trees promise to bring a number of economic benefits to those who grow them. Genetically modified trees tend to grow faster, give greater yields of food, fruit, or other products and be hardier. This allows tree farmers to get faster and greater returns on their farming investment and save on pesticides as well.
Finally, the use of genetically modified trees can prevent overexploitation of wild trees. Because of the growing demand for firewood or building timber, many forests around the world are being cut down faster than they can be replaced. Introducing genetically modified trees, designed for fast growth and high yield in given geographic conditions, would satisfy the demand for wood in many of those areas and save the endangered native trees, which often include unique or rare species.
The reading passage presents three aspects in which planting genetically modified trees could be beneficial. However, the speaker in the lecture casts doubt on the claims made in the article.
To begin with, the author assumes that genetic modifications could make trees more resistant to infections. It further elaborates how pest-resistant species of papaya trees were able to put an end to the ring spot viral infestation. The lecturer, on the other hand, brings up the fact that the natural population is more likely to survive a major climate change or invasion of insects since they are more genetically diverse. Although some vulnerable trees would die, other trees would have specific genes that enable them to adapt to the environmental change. As a result, the population would be able to grow after the crisis. On the contrary, genetically modified trees are genetically much more uniform, which put them at a greater risk if they were faced by pest invasion or fluctuations in the weather.
Secondly, the writer holds that genetically modified seeds would offer more economic benefits as they would grow faster and produce a bigger yield saving the cost of pesticides. In contrast, the professor indicates that farmers cannot take seeds from genetically modified trees and plant them. Instead, by law, they have to pay the seed companies each time they grow a new tree. Thus, there would be no saving on expenditure.
Lastly, the excerpt contends that the genetically modified types would save the native tree population by providing a source of rapidly growing trees with high yield of firewood, hence preventing overexploitation of rare species. Conversely, the lecturer points out that the new species would cause more harm than good. She further explains that since genetically modified trees grow more aggressively, they would outcompete local trees for resources, such as soil nutrients and water. Consequently, the unique native trees could die out.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 540, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the unique native trees could die out.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, conversely, hence, however, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, thus, in contrast, such as, as a result, on the contrary, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1672.0 1373.03311258 122% => OK
No of words: 315.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30793650794 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77841081222 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.584126984127 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 512.1 419.366225166 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.7951192199 49.2860985944 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.5 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6875 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.375 7.06452816374 147% => 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 : 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: 0.205234101766 0.272083759551 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0725246844876 0.0996497079465 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0379342014972 0.0662205650399 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129188768823 0.162205337803 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0332794740128 0.0443174109184 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => 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: 13.52 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.