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 and listening both discuss about the invasion of cheatgrass in North American fields. The reading presents three solution of the problems induced by cheatgrass on animal habitants and scenic areas where they drive out other native plants. However, the lecture contradicts each of the given solutions.
Firstly, the reading claims that grazers could be used to create room for native species to reestablish themselves and flourish as grazers will eat the cheatgrass where it is prevalent. However, the lecturer disputes the claims by informing that grazers prefer to eat other kind of plants rather than cheatgrass and only eat cheatgrass when there is no available plants. Additionally, he provide the explanation that this action only have the opposite effect on the native species as they are bound to destroy first.
Secondly, the reading asserts that controlled fire can be used to burn off the cheatgrass as they are highly flammable plant. The lecturer contradicts the solutions by providing explanation that fire only burn the surface of plants or the seeds on the surfaces but the seeds under the surfaces or the deeply buried seeds will eventually spurt and filled with the fields.
Finally, the reading insists on introducing the fungal parasites that only attacks the cheatgrass. However, the lecturer disputes the possibility as cheatgrass and the fungus are linked back to thousands years and only the unhealthy one are porne to danger. Furthermore, he clarifies that the healthy and the strong ones has already resistant against the fungal attacks. Thus, the method will not be efficient to control the invasion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 389, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'provides'.
Suggestion: provides
...s no available plants. Additionally, he provide the explanation that this action only h...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, thus, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1388.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 262.0 270.72406181 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29770992366 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02323427807 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64889895909 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.541984732824 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 408.6 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.4786903054 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.666666667 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8333333333 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.58333333333 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.165555280639 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0572611765289 0.0996497079465 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0539617404245 0.0662205650399 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0999754365836 0.162205337803 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0614036330127 0.0443174109184 139% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.46 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.