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.
The professor challenges all the claims made by the reading, which is about the decline of the bird population in the United States due to a surge in population growth, increased use of wildland for agriculture, and the use of chemical pesticides. However, the professor refutes all these by presenting a counter-argument for each assumption. He argues they are unconvincing.
First, the reading posits that a soaring population expansion vanishes the natural habitats of the birds leads to their decrease. The professor opposes this by claiming that urban growth has been bad for some types of birds, but it is a better and larger habitat for other birds. He elaborates this by saying that the city and the population of the suburb complain of the growing population of pigeons and other birds and they noted hawks and falcons are increasing day by day to feed these birds and the rodents. This specific point counters the reading.
Second, the relationship between the bird population and the use of their habitat by the farmers is disproved by the lecturer. He says that, in the USA, less and less land is used for agriculture. Therefore, the habitat is maintained for the birds. Furthermore, With the advent of new technology, more productive varieties of food crops from less land is developed that consequently solve this problem.
Finally, the statement of artificial pesticide use, killing the bird population is disproved by the professor. He thinks that there are two possible explanations for this claim. First, new and less toxic pesticides are now available in the markets that may reduce the devastating effect on birds as mentioned in the passage. Second and perhaps the most important point is now the agricultural field is developing pest-resistant crops. This can not only reduce the use of chemical pesticides on crops but also cannot harm the bird population.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, so, therefore
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1580.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 309.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11326860841 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1926597562 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90702086513 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.53074433657 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 486.9 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.5605980809 49.2860985944 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.75 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3125 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.8125 7.06452816374 82% => 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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.265619512281 0.272083759551 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0821553901593 0.0996497079465 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.06908302471 0.0662205650399 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.166532241179 0.162205337803 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0441657156598 0.0443174109184 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.