Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they respond to the specific concerns presented in the reading passage
Both the reading passage and the lecture are about the possibility of the usage of the box-shaped device in order to fight against desertification. The writer suggests that there are three reasons why this device is not successful. On the contrary, the lecturer refutes the reading's claims.
First and foremost, the professor explains that the cost of this device is reasonable compare to the benefits that we gain from the usage of that. The lecturer thinks that these box shaped devices can be reused twenty times or more. As a result, we would be able to save a lot of trees and fight the desertification. However, the article claims that the cost of 25 dollars is very high price for one of these devices.
Secondly, the lecturer states that installation and maintenance is going to give local people the opportunity to use the water that is collected for the growth of other vegetables not only for the growth of trees. Therefore, local people will benefit and award themselves with other plants, which would serve as a food source for them. This opposes the reading's statement, which states that people are very busy to make their own living because is very hard to find food in those harsh weather conditions.
Finally, the reading suggests that the ability to collect water would be limited if we use the box-shaped device. Nevertheless, the speaker opposes this point by mentioning that this device will help the tree to extent the root system and that would help the tree to get the water from the soil beneath. Consequently, the tree would not need the device anymore. The professor points out an example of trees that are found in a desert area that were able to live two more years after the device was removed.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 354, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'readings'' or 'reading's'?
Suggestion: readings'; reading's
... food source for them. This opposes the readings statement, which states that people are...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1435.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.79933110368 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52920216071 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531772575251 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 446.4 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => 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: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.2616780623 49.2860985944 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.5 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3571428571 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.42857142857 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.108784464391 0.272083759551 40% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0426266895412 0.0996497079465 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0421175985854 0.0662205650399 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0722824216388 0.162205337803 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0362115795156 0.0443174109184 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.56 12.2367328918 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.79 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.