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 lecture and the reading are both about the possible solutions to prevent the growth of cheatgrass in North America. The author of the reading feels that there are three possible solutions to eliminate the growth of cheatgrass in the North American fields. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. He believes that these methods are unlikely to work very well.
To begin with, the author argues that using grazers would eliminate the thriving of cheatgrass in North American fields. The article mentions that livestock will eat cheatgrass so that native plants can grow profoundly in that area. The lecturer challenges this specific argument. He claims that grazers do not prefer cheatgrass. Additionally, he says that grazers will eat native plants and leave the cheatgrass behind.
Secondly, the writer suggests that using fire is the second possible solution. The article says that cheatgrass is a highly flammable plant, and burning it would control its growth. The lecturer, however, refutes this by mentioning that fire will only destroy the cheatgrass on the surface. He elaborates on this by pointing out that the seeds, which will survive inside the soil, will grow again and thrive in the region.
Finally, the author posits that introducing fungal parasites would control the growth of cheatgrass. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that cheatgrass has formed a type of resistance toward the fungal parasites through the years. He notes that fungal parasites do not harm strong and healthy cheatgrass.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 261, 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.
...heatgrass in the North American fields. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, however, if, second, secondly, so, well, as for, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1298.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 245.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29795918367 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.95632099841 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57762130885 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 123.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.502040816327 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 375.3 419.366225166 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.0576919232 49.2860985944 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.125 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.3125 21.698381199 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.25 7.06452816374 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.132528869205 0.272083759551 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0469599408752 0.0996497079465 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0359681637479 0.0662205650399 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0817060322557 0.162205337803 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0434923001392 0.0443174109184 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 53.8541721854 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.87 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.