Some scientists have proposed an interesting way to slow down global climate change: they want to increase the growth of phytoplankton in Earth's oceans by fertilizing the oceans with iron dust. Phytoplankton are tiny, ocean-dwelling plants that can absorb great amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). Since carbon dioxide contributes enormously to global warming, increasing phytoplankton by iron fertilization is expected to slow global warming. However, there are many potential problems with iron fertilization.
First, iron fertilization may not be very effective. So far, only very few experiments have shown that iron fertilization leads to increased absorption of atmospheric CO2 by phytoplankton. In addition, the increases in CO2 absorption detected in the experiments were quite small. This leads many experts to think that full-scale iron fertilization would be just as ineffective.
Second, the quick growth of phytoplankton can lead to dangerous increases in environmental toxins. Some phytoplankton produce toxins that are relatively harmless in small amounts but can be very dangerous when produced by a large enough population. The toxins kill some species of fish, which hurts the fishing industry. They also cause other species of fish to be poisonous for human consumption, which causes many people to become sick. If we implement iron fertilization, we can expect this to happen much more often.
Third, seeding the oceans with large volumes of a nutrient such as iron could upset the oceans' ecological balance. We do not know how the various ocean organisms will react to an iron-rich environment. Some may thrive in it, while others may suffer. In the long run, iron fertilization could change the plant and animal composition of the ocean ecosystems; some species may even become extinct as a result.
The passage discusses iron fertilization as a way to fight back climate change because it going to ramp up the number of phytoplankton that absorb CO2 linked to global warming. However, the writer puts forward several problems, the lecture addresses each by presenting convincing counterarguments.
First and foremost, the article asserts that only a few conducted research has shown an increase in CO2 absorption in small amounts. On the other hand, the professor points out that phytoplankton lives longer than one month monitored in the experiments, and surprisingly they absorb CO2 in the second and third months sufficiently. Therefore, Iron fertilization is practical.
Secondly, The author contends that phytoplankton produce a small amount of toxins normally, but were their number goes up leads to the killing of some species of fish. The speaker, conversely, calls this contention into question. He explicitly states that this problem could be addressed by stopping iron fertilizing, hence decreasing phytoplankton. Thereby, the challenge is dealt with by seeding not enough iron.
Last but not least, the reading claims that a significant amount of iron is capable of disturbing the ocean's ecological balance. On the contrary, the lecture clears out that this is a risk that should be taken to avoid a greater risk, climate change, in which we will have to face severe harm. As a result, it is a choice between bad and worse.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 51, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[5]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'few conducted research'.
Suggestion: few conducted research
...foremost, the article asserts that only a few conducted research has shown an increase in CO2 absorption...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 192, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...pecies of fish. The speaker, conversely, calls this contention into question. He ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, as a result, 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: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1210.0 1373.03311258 88% => OK
No of words: 230.0 270.72406181 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26086956522 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.89432290496 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03266401695 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.665217391304 0.540411800872 123% => OK
syllable_count: 362.7 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.7271431835 49.2860985944 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.833333333 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1666666667 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.9166666667 7.06452816374 155% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.218106001232 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0619070507158 0.0996497079465 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0529968132802 0.0662205650399 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110274396876 0.162205337803 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0235517059602 0.0443174109184 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
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: 13.23 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.7273730684 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.