In the past century, the steady growth of the human population and the corresponding increase in agriculture and pesticide use have caused much harm to wildlife in the United States—birds in particular. Unfortunately for birds, these trends are likely to continue, with the result that the number of birds in the United States will necessarily decline.
First, as human populations and settlements continue to expand, birds’ natural habitats will continue to disappear. Forests, wetlands, and grasslands will give way to ever more homes, malls, and offices. As the traditional areas suitable for birds keep decreasing, so will the size of the bird populations that depend on those vanishing habitats.
Second, agricultural activities must increase to keep pace with the growing human population. The growth of agriculture will also result in the further destruction of bird habitats as more and more wilderness areas are converted to agricultural use. As a result, bird populations in rural areas will continue to decline.
Third, as human settlements expand and agriculture increases, the use of chemical pesticides will also increase. Pesticides are poisons designed to kill agricultural and home garden pests, such as insects, but inevitably, pesticides get into the water and into the food chain for birds where they can harm birds. Birds that eat the poisoned insects or drink contaminated water can die as a result, and even if pesticides do not kill birds outright, they can prevent them from reproducing successfully. So pesticides have significantly contributed to declines in bird population, and because there will continue to be a need to control agricultural pests in the future, this decline will continue.
Recently, there have been a ton of debates about the real causes of the decline in the birds' number in the United States. According to the reading passage, the writer puts forth the idea that the growth of the human population is the main reason for the decrease in the number of birds. In the listening, the lecturer is quick to point out there are some serious flaws in the writer's claims. The professor believes that the claims in the reading passage are unconvincing and address the trouble with each point made in the reading text.
Foremost, the author of the reading states that the bird's natural habitats will shrink noticeably because of the building activities of homes and offices. Some professionals in the same field, however, stand in firm opposition to this claim. In the listening, such as the professor states that urban development will give large habitats for other species. He says that the building activities will increase the populations of Pigeons and Siegel.
One group of scholars, represented by the writer, thinks the agricultural activities will destroy birds' habitats. Though, not all experts in this field believe this is right. Again, the speaker specifically addresses this point when he says that in the United States less land being used in agriculture. He states that they introduce new and more productive crops and no need to destruct the birds' habitat.
Finally, the author wraps his argument by positing that the use of pesticides will kill the birds in the ecosystem. The lecturer takes this issue with his claim by contending that scientists have developed new and less toxic pesticides. He also states that some crops have developed genetically to resist pests.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 115, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Though” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...activities will destroy birds habitats. Though, not all experts in this field believe ...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 393, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'birds'' or 'bird's'?
Suggestion: birds'; bird's
...ctive crops and no need to destruct the birds habitat. Finally, the author wrap...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, so, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1443.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 283.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09893992933 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10153676581 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58559714375 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.540636042403 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 432.0 419.366225166 103% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.5895310258 49.2860985944 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 96.2 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8666666667 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.6 7.06452816374 37% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.177129255609 0.272083759551 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0559015792259 0.0996497079465 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.04318709922 0.0662205650399 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101802235633 0.162205337803 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0155319215554 0.0443174109184 35% => 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: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.