Leglisation would have to include a tempmorary moratorium in devolpment in areas where mature trees would me harmed and ordinances that would protect and nurture trees currently growing on indsutrial, institutional, and rsidential land.
Support to mantain and conserve the trees should be twofold. First, public funds should be allocated for this purpose. An adequate budget form maintenance of trees in parks and along city streets must be included in several city departmens and funded by a small incerase in city taxes. Eually important, however, private funds should be solicited through initiatives such as memorial trees plantings, adopt-a-tree programs, and a tree endowment fund.
As the final portion of the plan, a public information campaign would be essential to educate local resident and business. Otherwise, the advantages of the irban forests would not be understood and, therfore, not enccouraged. Besides enghancing the landscape and improving the lifestyle of residents and visitors, trees mitigate air pollution, provide natural shade, cool the surrounding area, and redice ultraviolet radiation.
The passage and the lecture are both about a plan to protect the urban forests. More specific, the author points out that the plan should include topics as legislation, support of the community and public campaigns. While, the professor casts doubt in regard of the three points by giving specific details.
First of all, the author of the passage claims that mature trees should be protected by law because they could get harmed by the urbanization and industrial zones. Nevertheless, the professor opposes this idea by stating that in the past, the law wasn’t as efficient as they thought, due to the fact that it was barely understandable for the community and wasn’t applied properly.
Secondly, the author posits that it’s totally necessary the support of the community to protect the trees. Thus, it’s essential to allocate an adequate budget for the conservation trees planted in parks and city streets, thereby for activities such as adopting a tree and memorial trees. However, the professor refutes this specific argument, insomuch in the past low funds were recollected from private fund. Although, she proposes that the maintenance could be done with volunteer work and increasing the taxes fund.
Finally, the last point is public campaigns to educate the local residents in order to persuade them to act for the benefits of the forests, for example the decrease of UV radiation and reduce of pollution. In contrast, the lecturer indicates that most campaigns expose vague information that isn’t directly beneficial for the individual. Therefore, she suggests that it must be emphasized how executing this plan would help the community to have better golf parks and cleaner parks.
Hence, in conclusion, after this holistic analysis, speaker lucidly substantiates his points of view with cogency.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 217, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “While” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... of the community and public campaigns. While, the professor casts doubt in regard of...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 308, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hree points by giving specific details. First of all, the author of the passage ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, while, for example, in conclusion, in contrast, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1546.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 290.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33103448276 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12666770723 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71654113155 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.6 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 459.0 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.5310534705 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.923076923 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3076923077 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.1538461538 7.06452816374 172% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => 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 : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.103722507272 0.272083759551 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0326252579037 0.0996497079465 33% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0396153007404 0.0662205650399 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0465576122814 0.162205337803 29% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0262022662326 0.0443174109184 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.3589403974 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.93 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.41 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27 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.