The main topic of both the lecture and the passage is about salvage logging. Considering this, the author claims that the envoirnment and the economy can both benefit from this practice. The professor, on the other hand, utterly rejects whatever mentioned in the passage through citing three reasons.
First, both the reading and the lecture talk about probable effects of the salvage logging on the forest region. According to the passage, salvage logging provides land to grow new trees. Besides, vermons population would increase dramatically, and bugs endanger live planets. The professor, however, rebuts the author's view and states, salvage logging would impoverish soil which is vital to revive the forest, and also the dead trees could shelter other animals such as birds as well as other insects.
Second of all, both the passage and the lecture debates likely economical imapcts. The professor goes on to mention, the wood which would be obtained from dorment trees can be used as a raw material in industries, pluse, it will create many jobs for local residents. Nontheless, the profeesor supports the contradict idea and illustrates, it would not miserly to cut those precious trees beacuse the operation's cost would be enourmous. Moreover, it would just make temporary jobs for professional outsiders not local people who live in the vicinity.
All in all, the author belives, both the envoirnment and the economy could beneficiary, but, the professor holds a different idea and states the dead trees are essential for reviving forests and it does not have a significant imapct on the economy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 303, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...nts. Nontheless, the profeesor supports the contradict idea and illustrates, it would not mise...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...local people who live in the vicinity. All in all, the author belives, both the...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, well, such as, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 8.0 22.412803532 36% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1359.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 259.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2471042471 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01166760082 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5981486506 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.586872586873 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 412.2 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.8409085861 49.2860985944 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.25 110.228320801 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5833333333 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.83333333333 7.06452816374 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.29256928955 0.272083759551 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0970973881059 0.0996497079465 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0703892451793 0.0662205650399 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15896373778 0.162205337803 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0697603013394 0.0443174109184 157% => OK
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: 13.17 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.43 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27 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.