The author and the lecturer both discuss "let it burn" policy and its consequences. The reading use example of forest fire in Yellostone national park to illustrate that "let it burn" policy has three significant damages and it should supersede with a policy of extinguishing forest fire to suppress flames as soon as possible. However, the lecturer refutes this claim, casting doubt on every single point made by the author.
First, while the reading passage mentions that one third of the Yellostone’s land had been scorched because of the fire, the professor believes that a fire is always an opportunity for new plant species to colonize and thrive. For instance, in the scorch areas, the trees were replaced with the new smaller plants required open and unshaded space to grow. Plus, because of the high temperature some seeds gained the chance to germinate and become new plants.
In addition, the reading makes the argument that many animals in the forest run away such as deer and some small animal could not able to escape. Moreover, the food supplies completely destroy. Conversely, the lecture states its similar story with the animals and not the population recover but also the fire create lots of opportunity in the Yellowstone. For example, some species such as rabbits to start surviving that depends on predator's food.
Finally, the reading asserts that the fires reduced a tourist attraction to the area, and it had negative impact on local economy and businesses. In contrast, the lecture explains that in the year 1988, there were plentiful of unusual combination of factors like low rainfall, which exaggerated the damage. But those fires do not happen every year. In fact, they have not been occurring since that year and tourists came to visit the next year and each year after that.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 147, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...use example of forest fire in Yellostone national park to illustrate that 'l...
^^
Line 3, column 433, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'predators'' or 'predator's'?
Suggestion: predators'; predator's
...bits to start surviving that depends on predators food. Finally, the reading asserts tha...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, finally, first, however, if, moreover, so, third, while, for example, for instance, in addition, in contrast, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1536.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 301.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10299003322 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6232049866 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.604651162791 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 483.3 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.2401782908 49.2860985944 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.714285714 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.6428571429 7.06452816374 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => 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: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => 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: 12.3 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.