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 there are three solutions proposed by ecologists in order to eliminate the population of cheatgrass in North American fields. The lecturer, however, finds the idea dubious and casts doubt on the methods proposed by the reading passage.
The author argues that by releasing grazers like cattle in fields where the cheatgarss is dominated, the population if these grasses will be reduced by consuming by those animals. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that cheatgarss is not grazers' preferred food. If native plants be present in those fields, cattle start feeding on them at first, and, then they may eat some cheatgrasses. As a result, this approach may have opposite effect and reduce the native plants' population.
Furthermore, the reading passage holds the view that cheatgarss is more flammable than native plants in North American fields, so burning them by fire can be useful approach to decrease them. On the contrary, the professor underlines the fact that this garss produces many seeds and some of them may hide under the surface and germinate after the fire. Since the fire burn only grasses on the surface, these hidden seeds can produce new plants in that regions.
Finally, the reading asserts that a certain species of fungal used in origing habitat of cheatgrass, Europe and Asia, in order to prevent them fromm reproduction, so by enlisting the helping hand of this fungusm, American fields will be empty of cheatgrass. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that this fungus can attack weak and sick cheatgrass, and, because of the fact that cheatgrass and fungus hve lived for a long time together, cheatgrass has adapted some resistance against fungus attack and can be survive. As the young cheatgrass will not be damaged by the fungus, this method cannot be efficient .
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.
...thods proposed by the reading passage. The author argues that by releasing grazers...
^^^
Line 2, column 471, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'plants'' or 'plant's'?
Suggestion: plants'; plant's
...e opposite effect and reduce the native plants population. Furthermore, the reading p...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 379, Rule ID: BECAUSE_OF_THE_FACT_THAT[1]
Message: This phrase is redundant. Use simply 'because'.
Suggestion: because
...n attack weak and sick cheatgrass, and, because of the fact that cheatgrass and fungus hve lived for a l...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 633, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
... fungus, this method cannot be efficient .
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, then, in contrast, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1547.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 305.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07213114754 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5760362311 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554098360656 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 464.4 419.366225166 111% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.1885015274 49.2860985944 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.916666667 110.228320801 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4166666667 21.698381199 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.16666666667 7.06452816374 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => 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: 0.192778103513 0.272083759551 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0684009218305 0.0996497079465 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0433111556001 0.0662205650399 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103153337244 0.162205337803 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0370517857464 0.0443174109184 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 13.3589403974 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.