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 passage proposes several solutions to eliminate cheatgrass invasion in North America, but the professor casts doubt on each proposition and points out the problems with convincing evidence.
Firstly, while the reading suggests that cheatgrass invasion could be controlled by introducing animals that feed on them, the lecturer argues that such animals tend to prefer eating other plants other than cheatgrass. In this way, although animals may help eat some cheatgrass, but they would massively destroy other plants, leaving the land full of cheatgrass. Thus, the negative effect brought by these suggestions are far more than their positive side.
Secondly, the reading states that burning the field with controlled fire can help reduce the amount of cheatgrass since it is extremely flammable. However, the professor rebuts the idea, claiming that while fire will burn on the grass's surface, cheatgrass will still come back because there are plenty of seeds left below the surface where fire cannot reach. Eventually, those seeds will sprout and grow into new cheatgrass.
Finally, the author of the passage contends that introducing a fungal parasite to attack cheatgrass is another option. In contrast, the professor in the listening refutes that this method will not work because cheatgrass in North American fields has lived with this kind of parasite over thousands of years, which already became resistant to the parasite. Hence, only those weak grass is vulnerable to the introduced parasites, and most strong and healthy ones simply will not be affected at all.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, may, second, secondly, so, still, thus, while, in contrast, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1339.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 248.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.39919354839 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96837696647 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53692489113 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.649193548387 0.540411800872 120% => OK
syllable_count: 395.1 419.366225166 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.3147309668 49.2860985944 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.9 110.228320801 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8 21.698381199 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.3 7.06452816374 160% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.198318889648 0.272083759551 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0682799819418 0.0996497079465 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0541725692786 0.0662205650399 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110488040934 0.162205337803 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0333642415923 0.0443174109184 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.3589403974 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.