Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they respond to the specific concerns presented in the reading passage.
The reading and the lecture offer two opposing views on the advantages of the proposed boxes which are used for stopping desertification. Whereas the author of the reading states that some scientists disagree with this proposal, while the lecturer suggests that this device is beneficial and valuable to use. She casts doubt on the main points made in the text by providing the three reasons.
First, according to the text, each box costs 20 dollars which makes the progress for millions of trees very expensive. For some countries it is hardly affordable to use. However, the lecturer discusses the reusable feature of the devices. She asserts that each box could use for twenty times or more, which is worth to use and diminish the costs.
Secondly, the author claims that the installation and preserving the boxes is difficult for people who lives in the areas near deserts. These local dwellers have difficulty to find food for their families, and they might be devoid of any impetus to fight for desertification. Although, the lecturer believes that if each device, after removing trees, can be used for cultivating vegetables. Hence, it could provide food for them, and many trees growing during this process, are then useful as firewood. Therefore, as the lecturer explains, local people which have enough food sources and firewood, will have motivation to help fighting against desertification.
Finally, the text mentions that the boxes have a little capacity for holding sufficient water for small trees and after growing, the trees will have tough time in the rigor environmental condition to live. Nevertheless, the lecturer argues that the trees cultivated in the boxes will have long roots. After removing the boxes, these long roots could go deeper in the soil and find water for surviving trees in the harsh weather of the deserts.
To recap, the lecturer contradicts with the text in the three reasons about how the boxes are useful for fighting against desertification.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, whereas, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1669.0 1373.03311258 122% => OK
No of words: 325.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13538461538 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69154978343 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538461538462 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 502.2 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.5599520766 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.3125 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3125 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.8125 7.06452816374 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.0967089399558 0.272083759551 36% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0392370897808 0.0996497079465 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0535155859825 0.0662205650399 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0641623827211 0.162205337803 40% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0606694826853 0.0443174109184 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.