The article and the lecture both deal with a species of grass known as cheatgrass. This grass spreads rapidly in the area where it has been planted, thus damaging the natural habitat. Whilst the author thinks that this problem can be solved by eliminating the cheatgrass and provides three options for it, the lecturer opposes the author's claims. In his opinion, the ways provided by the author would not work effectively.
First, the writer proposes the option of bringing in cattle to eat up the cheatgrass as they are popular for their grazing ability. Further, he thinks that this plan would be successful as cheatgrass is in abundance in North America where there is a good upbringing of livestock. In contrast, the lecturer argues that this plan might not work as this grass will not be preferred by the grazers as the area also has a wide range of other plants. Additionally, he maintains that this will harm the native plants and will have a negative effect on the area.
Second, the author mentions another plan of burning down the cheatgrass as he thinks this will help to clear a majority of it. On top of that, he adds that as cheatgrass is an inflammable substance it would be easy to clear up the area, and thus the local plant species could be flourished in the empty space. However, the lecturer calls this argument into question by saying that fire will only destroy the superficial cheatgrass and as cheatgrass spreads its seeds quickly the seeds will be present buried in the nearby land. Further, he remarks that these underground seeds will come to life and the cycle will continue.
Finally, the writer provides another option of introducing fungal parasites to eliminate cheatgrass. In addition to that, it is mentioned in the article that there is a typical species of fungal grass that has the ability to stop cheatgrass from reproducing. As opposed to the author, the lecturer says that as this parasite and cheatgrass have lived together, cheatgrass has developed resistance to it. He highlights that the parasite hence only attacks the weak ones and this technique is not efficient.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, hence, however, if, second, so, thus, in addition, in contrast, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 22.412803532 178% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1760.0 1373.03311258 128% => OK
No of words: 360.0 270.72406181 133% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88888888889 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35587717469 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60047479046 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494444444444 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 522.9 419.366225166 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.1698506678 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.0 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.25 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.164739404644 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0570818391959 0.0996497079465 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0325864002818 0.0662205650399 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105966042244 0.162205337803 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0208597992236 0.0443174109184 47% => 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: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.38 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 63.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.0 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.