Let it burn forest fire policy
The reading and lecture are both about the"Let it burn" natural forest fire policy. The author of the reading strongly postulates that after the damage of the Yellowstone fire incident, the policy needed to be changed and provides three reasons to endorse its idea. On the other hand, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He thinks that forest this policy about the fires are fundamental for ecosystem creation.
First and foremost, the passage begins by asserting that the tremendous fire accident in Yellowstone turned the national asset into barren land and especially had a dramatic effect on the park's vegetation. The author claims that small shrubs and tall trees were either burned or completely ruined. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He says that natural fire diversified the plants' growth by providing an opportunity to those species that couldn't be naturally developed otherwise. For instance, for those plant seeds that required exposure to a high temperature to germinate; fire heat provided them with suitable developmental conditions. Furthermore, he points out that scorched colonies were replaced by vast new varieties of plants.
Next, the professor in the lecture states that just like plant developments, animal populations were recovered in the land too. The spread of small growing plants attracted the herds of rodent-like hares and rabbits, who feed on these low shrubs. He argues that the provision of natural habitat to these rodents brought back their predators, and that made the ecological food chain even stronger. These claims refute the writer's implication that as a consequence of fire, the natural food chain is adversely disrupted as it forced some animal creatures to migrate while others were left burning.
Ultimately, the article wraps his arguments by declaring that not only tourism was demolished but also local businesses had to go through financial losses which result in a decline in the economy. The speaker in the listening rebutted this point by insisting that visitors had started to return just a year later that incidence and number of tourists are continuously increasing from that time whereas 1988, was the only year when certain other factors involved which make that year disastrous in history. He elaborates this by mentioning that dry weather, heavy wind, and heavy rainfall were the environmental conditions that have never been seen together after that year.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 66, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...re both about the'Let it burn' natural forest fire policy. The author o...
^^
Line 2, column 189, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'parks'' or 'park's'?
Suggestion: parks'; park's
...especially had a dramatic effect on the parks vegetation. The author claims that smal...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 382, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'plants'' or 'plant's'?
Suggestion: plants'; plant's
... says that natural fire diversified the plants growth by providing an opportunity to t...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 446, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...ng an opportunity to those species that couldnt be naturally developed otherwise. For i...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 421, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
... even stronger. These claims refute the writers implication that as a consequence of fi...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, if, so, whereas, while, for instance, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 12.0772626932 199% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 22.412803532 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 48.0 30.3222958057 158% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2074.0 1373.03311258 151% => OK
No of words: 391.0 270.72406181 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30434782609 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70376393465 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 145.348785872 164% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.611253196931 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 641.7 419.366225166 153% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.8021175212 49.2860985944 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.0 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 21.698381199 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05882352941 7.06452816374 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
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: 0.202826693457 0.272083759551 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0590017432134 0.0996497079465 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0949533255901 0.0662205650399 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124951734229 0.162205337803 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.148494575276 0.0443174109184 335% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.74 8.42419426049 116% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 63.6247240618 193% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.