'LET IT BURN' POLICY
The passage and the lecturer discuss the “let it burn'' policy where the government opt to let forest fires subside on their own instead of putting down the fire. Specifically, they assess its effectiveness using 1988 forest fires at Yellowstone national park. While the lecturer discusses the positive effects of the aforementioned policy, the passage argues against it, stating the negative consequences of such unregulated fire hazards.
First of all, the Yellowstone forest fires brought catastrophic damage to the vegetation, by destroying one third of the total park area. The lecturer puts forth a different viewpoint stating the diversity of Yellowstone vegetation since the 1988 disaster. She states how the fires helped in pollinating and grooming unique plants and diversifying the plant life in the national park.
Second of all, the 1988 fires also brought destruction of wildlife and disrupted the food chain present in the park. The lecturer, instead, points out how the fire altered the plant life to cater to a new set of animals like hares feeding on plants and another set of predators preying on hares. Thus, creating a whole new food chain pertaining to the place.
Furthermore, The passage discusses the economic disadvantages created by the forest fires. It decreased the rate of tourism and the chances for local businesses to profit from the tourism at the national park. The lecturer gives a counter argument by stating that these kinds of disasters are rare occurrences. In fact, such forest fires have not occurred in Yellowstone forests after 1988 and it still is a popular tourist spot.
As a concluding remark, the lecturer approves of the policy and believes that forest fires are a natural phenomenon that does not need any interference from the government. The passage differs from this notion by stating the destructive behaviour of forest fires and how they must be regulated to reduce potential destruction.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 41, Rule ID: EN_UNPAIRED_BRACKETS
Message: Unpaired symbol: '”' seems to be missing
...he passage and the lecturer discuss the “let it burn policy where the government ...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, if, second, so, still, third, thus, while, in fact, first of all
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: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 30.3222958057 145% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1652.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 313.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27795527157 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82408598056 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 145.348785872 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552715654952 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 507.6 419.366225166 121% => 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: 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: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.4520552433 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.133333333 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8666666667 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06452816374 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => 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: 0.0878560953561 0.272083759551 32% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.029885659726 0.0996497079465 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0923555871211 0.0662205650399 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0486288061684 0.162205337803 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0744734595479 0.0443174109184 168% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.