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 to 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 and the lecture are both about the yellow cedar population, which is a species of tree in North America. The author of the reading presents three theories about why the yellow cedar population is decline. The lecturer disputes the claims made in the article. He believes that none of the explanations discussed in the reading is adequate.
According to the reading, the decrease of population yellow cedar is because of the insect parasites, such as the bark beetle. The article mentions that bark beetle and larvae attack cedar trees and eat their wood. The lecturer challenges this specific argument. He claims that healthy yellow cedars are generally much more resistant to insect infestation than other tree species. Additionally, He points out that the beetles attacked trees that were already damaged or sick and would have probably died anyway.
Secondly, the author suggests that the decline of cedar trees may be caused by brown bears, as the tree barks contain high sugar. The lecturer, however, asserts that although bears damage some trees, they're not the cause of the overall population decline. He goes on to say that although there are no bears on some islands on the northwestern coast of North America, yellow cedar populations have been declining.
Finally, the author posits that climate changes may cause a reason for the decrease of cedar trees. The article mentions that these changes may have significant damage to cedar trees, especially on cold winter nights, as their roots are sensitive. In contrast, the lecturer’s stance is in terms of elevations. He notes that many more trees are dying at lower elevations and thus freezing damage is not responsible for the decline of the cedar tree populations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 218, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...the yellow cedar population is decline. The lecturer disputes the claims made in th...
^^^
Line 4, column 200, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: they're
... that although bears damage some trees, theyre not the cause of the overall population...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
anyway, finally, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, thus, in contrast, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1464.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13684210526 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56155731333 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.540350877193 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 450.0 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.0581282554 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.5 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8125 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.1875 7.06452816374 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.275954592656 0.272083759551 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0840263606853 0.0996497079465 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0685809651806 0.0662205650399 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.165327785967 0.162205337803 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0222443012269 0.0443174109184 50% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.