TPO 14
The lecture and the reading discuss positive and drawback aspects of salvage logging. Although the passage claims that salvage logging has several metric points, the speaker refutes this idea through several reasons which I will describe in this reporter.
First and foremost, the passage points out that by removing dead trees, new trees will be able to grow in free spaces. The lecturer, in contrast, rejects this by claiming that cleaning forest after storm or fire is not necessary. After the dead trees are discomposed, many nutrition comes to the soil, and the soil becomes rich. Hence, new trees can grow in the forest. But, if dead trees are removed, the forest's soil would not become rich.
Furthermore, unlike the passage which states that dead trees are a suitable place for insects to grow, and they will cause damage to healthy trees. However, the professor argues that dead trees can increase insects, but it is not mean they will damage other trees. For example, space bark beetle lived in the Alaska forest for the 1000 year without cause damage. She says that dead trees are suitable habitat for birds and other insects. Thus, salvage logging may be more harmful to forest ecosystem in long term periods.
Finally, although the passage says that salvage logging could provide wood for industries, and create additional job opportunities for locals. The speaker disagrees by mentioning that people remove dead trees from the forest by helicopters. Using helicopters is not economic so that it is so expensive. She adds that using dead trees create contemporary jobs, and sometimes outsiders with special abilities are used in salvage logging than the locals. Subsequently, it does not have the economic benefits that the passage claims.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 269, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun nutrition seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much nutrition', 'a good deal of nutrition'.
Suggestion: much nutrition; a good deal of nutrition
.... After the dead trees are discomposed, many nutrition comes to the soil, and the soil becomes...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, so, thus, for example, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1493.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 287.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20209059233 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11595363751 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.38992389239 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.560975609756 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 440.1 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.7437934829 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.8235294118 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8823529412 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.47058823529 7.06452816374 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.505930262359 0.272083759551 186% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.150156292294 0.0996497079465 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0595357604644 0.0662205650399 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.276600509263 0.162205337803 171% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0884627023605 0.0443174109184 200% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.58 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.