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.
Both the reading passage and the listening discuss the method to overcome the cheatgrass problem. The former says there are three methods that can be used to eradicate the cheatgrass, but the latter contradicts each of these points.
First of all, the reading passage claims that encouraging animals such as cattle to feed on cheatgrass helps to destroy the cheatgrass. However, the lecturer in the audio contends that there are other kinds of plants are also there and since cheatgrass is not the first choice of the grazers, it will affect adversely.
Second, the reading passage asserts that cheatgrass can be eliminated by burning off the fields with controlled fires. Notwithstanding, the audio argues that since cheatgrass produces too many seeds which usually stay below the surface the fire cannot harm them. Moreover, the audio argues that since seeds can germinate even after several years, burning the field might not work.
Third, the reading passage maintains that by introducing a fungal parasite that specifically attacks cheatgrass, we can get rid of the cheatgrass problem. Nevertheless, the lecturer on the listening side insists that since the fungal parasite and the cheatgrass have been living together for a thousand years, cheatgrass has already developed resistance to the fungal parasite. So introducing a fungal parasites is not likely to help us from overcoming the cheatgrass problem.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 403, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'parasite'?
Suggestion: parasite
...ungal parasite. So introducing a fungal parasites is not likely to help us from overcomin...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, third, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1199.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 223.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37668161435 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86434787811 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75351659642 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 128.0 145.348785872 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.57399103139 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 351.9 419.366225166 84% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.5786823163 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.9 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.5 7.06452816374 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.164266281579 0.272083759551 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.070918974485 0.0996497079465 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0312758628262 0.0662205650399 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0961170453052 0.162205337803 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00722758565239 0.0443174109184 16% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.22 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 63.6247240618 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.