The passage claims that the box-shaped device will not be prosperously interacted by desertification by pointing out three reasons for support. The lecture, on the other hand, states that the reasons which proposed against the use of the box-shaped device are not very convincing and refutes each of the author's reasons.
The passage claims that the box-shaped device will not be prosperously interacted by desertification by pointing out three reasons for support. The lecture, on the other hand, states that the reasons which proposed against the use of the box-shaped device are not very convincing and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First of all, the writer goes on to mention that the process of desertification comprise millions of trees and installation of the box-shaped device would cost 25 U S. dollars per tree, which needs a vast amount of funds. On the contrary, the professor rejects this by explaining that when the trees grow up, the box-shaped device could be removed and install to another young tree. It means that the box-shaped device is capable to be reused which leads to cost reduction and makes use of the more reasonable.
Furthermore, the reading explains that asking local people to attend the project to install and maintain the devices is difficult. Conversely, the listening supports an opposite view as compared to that presented in the passage; she describes that the box-shaped device can be used for other types of plants not just trees. After a tree grows, local people can use the box-shaped device for their vegetable which brings them to more food. They also can use from the branch of the trees as fire-wood.
Finally, the author argues that the box-shaped device only is appropriate for small trees and cannot supply the required water for a grown tree especially in harsh environmental conditions.
The speaker, in contrast, refutes the author's view and illustrates the idea that trees have a long root which allows them to reach far away down the surface and take advantage of the underground water. Therefore, the trees can survive without the devices.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, finally, first, furthermore, if, so, therefore, in contrast, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1503.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 296.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0777027027 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71630865783 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554054054054 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 447.3 419.366225166 107% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.7712120826 49.2860985944 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.615384615 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7692307692 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.76923076923 7.06452816374 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.520367613067 0.272083759551 191% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.195497057527 0.0996497079465 196% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.205005181576 0.0662205650399 310% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.311146778724 0.162205337803 192% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.291993203206 0.0443174109184 659% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => 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: 12.48 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
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: 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.