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 reading states that ecologists have been suggested three solutions for controling and solving the problem caused by cheatgrass. The lecturer, however, finds the idea dubious and casts doubt on the reasons proposed by the reading passage.
The author argues that releasing some grazers such as cattle which feed on grasses, can be a good option to reduce the population of cheatgrass and providing spaces for native plants. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that cheatgrass is not the preferred grass for cattle to eat. They eat other presented grasses at first and then feed on cheatgrass. As a result, this approach may have oppposite effect and reduce the population of native plants.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that by burnning cheatgrass that are more ignitive than other plants, fields can be provided for the growth of native grasses. On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that cheatgrasses burry many seeds below the surface and after the elimination of surface plants by fire, they will give rise and flourish new plants, so it will not be a practical approach to solve this problem.
Finally, the reading states that by inserting a fungal parasite, which brings about problems for cheatgrass in their native locations, into these places the reproduction of cheatgrasses can be reduced. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that this parasite only have the ability to attack the weak and sick plants. Strong plants resist towards parasite's attack and can stay alive. As a result this procedure cannot be efficient to reduce the spread of cheatgrass.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...asons proposed by the reading passage. The author argues that releasing some graze...
^^^
Line 4, column 407, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” 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.
...ds parasites attack and can stay alive. As a result this procedure cannot be effic...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, first, furthermore, however, may, so, then, in contrast, such as, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1369.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 266.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14661654135 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03850299372 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62929277709 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.567669172932 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 405.9 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.4603123904 49.2860985944 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.083333333 110.228320801 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1666666667 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.58333333333 7.06452816374 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.214131573579 0.272083759551 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0765327249887 0.0996497079465 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.039260386873 0.0662205650399 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124926947668 0.162205337803 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0293383029092 0.0443174109184 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.82 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25 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.