the international protection funds for forests
The material discusse the conceot of develop an in ternational protection funds to protect forest. While the reading loks at the topic from one perspective, the listening challenges certain points outlined in the reading passage.
Fitst, the reading claims that develop an international funds could encourage agriculture and improve the environment. On the contrary, the listening challenges that and states that agriculture itself could be a destructive way for the ecosystem because increasing population forces farmers to increase harvest by using modern technology, such as fertelisers and pestisides, which have a detrimental effect on the environment by increasing water wast and contamination. As a result, enhancing agriculture is not a proper idea.
Second, the author postes that this aproach could promote the economies of villages. Conversely, the lecturer opposes that and mentions this money will go the forests owners, who are usually governments not residents, so these funds will end up in the hand of government not forests dwellers.
Third, thereading says that international protection funds could enhance forest biodiversity.On the other hand, the professor contradictes that and claims that people will use this money to plant trees because they have a great commercial benefits, so if people use the money merely trees that will never help foresdt biodiversity. Consequently, protect international forests is inadequate.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 94, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: On
...funds could enhance forest biodiversity.On the other hand, the professor contradic...
^^
Line 7, column 240, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'benefit'?
Suggestion: benefit
...es because they have a great commercial benefits, so if people use the money merely tree...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 392, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ct international forests is inadequate.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, conversely, if, second, so, third, well, while, such as, as a result, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 17.0 30.3222958057 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1235.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 215.0 270.72406181 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.74418604651 5.08290768461 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.82921379641 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15266504996 2.5805825403 122% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 145.348785872 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.613953488372 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 377.1 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 105.959577664 49.2860985944 215% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 137.222222222 110.228320801 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8888888889 21.698381199 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.1111111111 7.06452816374 186% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.336172697386 0.272083759551 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.143341228795 0.0996497079465 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.150159892713 0.0662205650399 227% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176539154279 0.162205337803 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.068376515586 0.0443174109184 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 13.3589403974 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 53.8541721854 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.0289183223 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.31 12.2367328918 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.7 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 10.7273730684 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.2008830022 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.