Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific
points made in the reading passage about deforestation
Recently there has been a debate. More specifically, in regards to the reading passage, the author puts forth the idea that deforestation has benefited more people in different ways and provides three specific reasons for his claims. In the listening passage, the professor is quick to point out several flows in author's claims. In fact, the lecturer points out every misconception made by the author
First of all, the author in article states that deforestation provides more farmland which can be used for farming crops and livestock. He also highlights that it is important to produce food for every citizen of that nation. However, the lecturer thinks that it may have short-term benefits , but in for the long-term it can can more unpredictable consequences. He agrees on the fact that population have increased in Brazil and it is important to provide the essentials for them however he points out that, there are technological advancement which helps us to farm without use of soil. He also adds that we have use technological advancement for constructive purpose, not destructively.
Some scholars, represented by the author, thinks that increase in money of course increases the economy and this is used for residential purpose. Since the population rises the demand for living also increases. In contrast, the lecturer points out the problems faced by the animals, plants, insects, and birds losing their houses and suffering from deforestation. He also asserts that forests provide 20 percent of oxygen available in earths atmosphere.
Finally, the author in the article conveys that developing nations like Thailand, Indonesia has people depending on deforestation as their source of capita. So the author implies that if deforestation is shutdown, then many citizens might be affected. Not surprisingly, the author brings this into argument by saying that, these jobs are not well payed even though people take much risks with less benefits whereas, the owners are living a wealthy live.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 54, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: regarding; with regard to
...e has been a debate. More specifically, in regards to the reading passage, the author puts fo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 292, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...nks that it may have short-term benefits , but in for the long-term it can can mor...
^^
Line 2, column 323, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: can
... benefits , but in for the long-term it can can more unpredictable consequences. He agr...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 377, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
... not well payed even though people take much risks with less benefits whereas, the o...
^^^^
Line 4, column 393, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun benefits is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...even though people take much risks with less benefits whereas, the owners are living...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, so, then, well, whereas, in contrast, in fact, of course, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1687.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 319.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28840125392 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9098415308 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.579937304075 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 518.4 419.366225166 124% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.8983203882 49.2860985944 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.466666667 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2666666667 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.66666666667 7.06452816374 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => 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: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 14.1 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.