integrated task: salvage logging benefits
In the passage, the writer argues for the beneficial sides of salvage logging by providing reasonings how it can benefit financially and help the affected forrest. The professor in the lecture argues against the benefits presented in the passage.
Firstly, the passage argues that salvage logging the dead trees will help new trees to grow as the dead tress takes years to decompose. By doing that, it will create favourable condition for new trees to grow. But the professor contradicts the claim by saying that salvage logging might not result in favourable condition for the new trees to grow as removal of the dead trees will devoid the soils of necessary nutrients. These nutrients could have helped the upcoming generation of trees to grow. Thus the explanation of the professor contradicts the claim of the passage.
Secondly, the passage argues that the decomposing trees will host many insects like spruce bark beetle, that can hurt the living tress. So their removal is helpful for the forest. But the professor claims that the logic that spruce bark beetle will have an impact on the living spruce trees, is not sound. She provides an example of the Alaskan forest where the beetles are living for more than 100 years without significant negative impact. Moreover, she says that rotten wood might host other insects that will feed the other animals of the forest which are healthy for the forest, like birds.
Finally, the passage claims that the salvage logging is economically beneficial as it creates aditional jobs. In reply to this, the professor claims that, although additional jobs are created, but this jobs are temporary and most of the time requires experts from outside. In addtion, she explained that the salvage logging requires equipments that are very expensive, like they have to used helicopter if the forrest passages are blocked. So the economic benefits are only temporary.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 348, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...able condition for the new trees to grow as removal of the dead trees will devoid...
^^
Line 3, column 501, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...e upcoming generation of trees to grow. Thus the explanation of the professor contra...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1605.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 314.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11146496815 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45328995178 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493630573248 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 483.3 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.191100856 49.2860985944 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.3125 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.625 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.375 7.06452816374 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.152127607114 0.272083759551 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0577748464992 0.0996497079465 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0699850345897 0.0662205650399 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116408961813 0.162205337803 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0804359623236 0.0443174109184 181% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.