The reading states that salvage logging is beneficial as it removes dead trees from affected areas and provide wood for lumber, plywood and other wood products and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading states that after fire, the forest are choked with dead trees and this helps to decompose dead trees. However, the professor refutes this point by stating that those choked forests need to be clean and this hampers the growth of new tress. He also states that as the forest burn out, new plants lack of nutrient.
Second, the reading claims that dead trees do more than just take up space as decaying wood is a suitable for insects which damage live and healthy tress. But, the professor contends that insects like brittle and others does not cause major damage as they help to build a natural ecosystem. To support his claim, she states that those insects are living those environments for hundreds of years.
Third, the reading avers that salvage logging has economic benefits as it provides wood for industries and creates job for local residents. However, the lecture opposes this stating that this is not a long term solution. To solve this kind of problems often authorities use helicopter and other expensive means. He also states that often they hire experienced outsider to do the job. Thus locals do not get the jobs.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 385, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ire experienced outsider to do the job. Thus locals do not get the jobs.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, second, so, third, thus, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => 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: 1180.0 1373.03311258 86% => OK
No of words: 238.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95798319328 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92775363542 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.23567318451 2.5805825403 87% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.575630252101 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 346.5 419.366225166 83% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.715865805 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.7692307692 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3076923077 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.53846153846 7.06452816374 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.0686326011242 0.272083759551 25% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0229468415122 0.0996497079465 23% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0572839913081 0.0662205650399 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0469667541059 0.162205337803 29% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0470791629625 0.0443174109184 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.