Native to Europe and Asia, cheatgrass is an invasive species of grass that is causing problems in North American fields. The plant quickly dominates fields that it has invaded and drives out other plants. This can cause, among other problems, severe damage to animal habitats and to scenic areas. Several solutions to the cheatgrass problem have been proposed by ecologists.
One option is to encourage animals such as cattle to feed on cheatgrass. Cattle and other livestock are known as grazers because they graze, or eat. small portions of grass or other plants throughout the day. If grazers were released in fields where cheatgrass is prevalent, the cheatgrass would be reduced That would create room for native species to reestablish themselves and flourish. This plan is appealing because cheatgrass is most prevalent in areas of North America where cattle and other livestock are raised.
Another option is to burn the cheatgrass off the fields with controlled fires. This plan has the advantage of eliminating vast amounts of cheatgrass in a short time Cheatgrass, it turns out? is a highly flammable plant: it burns much more easily than the native plant species that have been crowded out. Strategically set fires could bum away the cheatgrass where it has come to dominate, creating space so the newly cleared fields could be reseeded with native grasses and other plants.
Still another option is to introduce a fungal parasite that specifically attacks cheatgrass. In Europe and Asia, where cheatgrass is a native species, there is a species of fungus that has the ability to prevent cheatgrass from reproducing. Introducing this fungus in North American fields where cheatgrass has proliferated could slow the spread of cheatgrass, making it possible for native species to better compete against cheatgrass.
The article asserts that there is a big problem with cheatgrass, an invasive non-native plant from Europe and Asia which dwells in North America and threats the native plant species and even affects negatively the native animal habitat. It propses three methods to fight against cheatgrass. On the other hand, the professor mentions that none of those methods are likely to control the cheatgrass propagation well.
First, the reading states that encouraging the cattles to eat cheatgrass will be an effective way to eradicate cheatgrass from the North America fields. Conversely, the lecturer rebuts this opinion by explaining that cattles prefer to eat native grass and unfortunately they eat native grass completely first and then they eat partially cheatgrass. This method will provide cheatgrass with more space and resources withoput a rival through which it could propagate enormousely and cover all fields. Therefore, he directly reject this idea.
Second, the writer suggests that by controled burning fields, cheatgrass, which is a flammable plant, they would wipe out from the field. Controversially, the lecturer mentions that cheatgrass produces myriad seeds, which they will germinate years afterward. The seeds and palnts on the surface may burn but the underground seeds will be remained intact which are able to produce new progenies over the next years, the professor explains. With this justification this solution does not hold water.
Thrid, the author avers that introducing a fungal parasite can kill the cheatgrass and will clear up the fields from this invasive unwanted gest. However, the speaker points out the cheatgrass and this fungus have been living together in Asia and Europe for thousands years; as a result, cheatgrass has developed resistance to cheatgrass. Indeed, this parasite is able to kill only the sick cheatgrass and the healthy grass is in a safe place. Consequently, this method won' taddress this problem.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...trol the cheatgrass propagation well. First, the reading states that encouragi...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 528, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[3]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'rejects'.
Suggestion: rejects
...over all fields. Therefore, he directly reject this idea. Second, the writer su...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...refore, he directly reject this idea. Second, the writer suggests that by cont...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...on this solution does not hold water. Thrid, the author avers that introducing...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, conversely, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, therefore, well, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1650.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 306.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39215686275 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71736693234 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 145.348785872 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.588235294118 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 478.8 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => 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: 57.115088491 49.2860985944 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.0 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.06666666667 7.06452816374 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.275651267004 0.272083759551 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0873395250798 0.0996497079465 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0666860681155 0.0662205650399 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.170114530425 0.162205337803 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0720742852385 0.0443174109184 163% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.3589403974 106% => 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: 13.98 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.