Populations of the yellow cedar, a species of tree that is common in northwestern North America, have been steadily declining for more than a century now, since about 1880. Scientists have advanced several hypotheses explain this decline.
One hypothesis is that the yellow cedar decline may be caused by insect parasites, specifically the cedar bark beetle. This beetle is known to attack cedar trees; the beetle larvae eat the wood. There have been recorded instances of sustained beetle attacks overwhelming and killing yellow cedars, so this insect is a good candidate for the cause of the tree's decline.
A second hypothesis attributes the decline to brown bears. Bears sometimes claw at the cedars in order to eat the tree bark, which has a high sugar content. In fact, the cedar bark can contain as much sugar as the wild berries that are a staple of the bears' diet. Although the bears' clawing is unlikely to destroy trees by itself, their aggressive feeding habits may critically weaken enough trees to be responsible for the decline.
The third hypothesis states that gradual changes of climate may be to blame. Over the last hundred years, the patterns of seasonal as well as day-to-day temperatures have changed in northwestern North America. These changes have affected the root systems of the yellow cedar trees: the fine surface roots now start growing in the late winter rather than in the early spring. The change in the timing of root growth may have significant consequences. Growing roots are sensitive and are therefore likely to suffer damage from partial freezing on cold winter nights. This frozen root damage may be capable of undermining the health of the whole tree, eventually killing it.
The reading is about the decline of cedar population. It provides three supporting ideas in order to strengthen its position. However, the professor says, what killing the cedar mentioned in the passage is not convincing. He refutes each of the article claim.
First, the written asserts that insects especially beetle is responsible for cedar dwindling. But, the lecturer denies this claim and he offers a convincing explanations, that healthy cedar plant able to resist the insects. Moreover, the plant parts especially bark, leaves can secretes powerful chemical to retard the parasite. Even though, the beetle that have claimed to destruction of cedar is not found on that area.
Second, the reading states that brown bear is responsible for cedar downgrading population. However, the speaker rejects this idea. He describes, overall decline is not upon to the bear species because some island where cedar population were destroyed but there was no bear on that place.
Third, the passage claims that change in climate is the negative effects for cedar population. The point is not convincing with the narrator. The professor illustrates, according to the climate pattern the more cedar tree should die at higher elevation but in case of cedar, it was lower elevation where they were most vulnerable. That is why, the idea of climate is not any effects of cedar population
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 158, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'explanation'?
Suggestion: explanation
...s this claim and he offers a convincing explanations, that healthy cedar plant able to resis...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, moreover, second, so, then, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1166.0 1373.03311258 85% => OK
No of words: 222.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25225225225 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.8600083453 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67121294955 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 128.0 145.348785872 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.576576576577 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 356.4 419.366225166 85% => 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: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.9581900642 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 77.7333333333 110.228320801 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.8 21.698381199 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.6 7.06452816374 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.162610202848 0.272083759551 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0538754725199 0.0996497079465 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0481427422333 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0954445513985 0.162205337803 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0132385627011 0.0443174109184 30% => 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: 10.7 13.3589403974 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 53.8541721854 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 11.0289183223 80% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.58 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.