TPO 14
According to the reading, salvage logging, which is a process of cleaning forests from dead trees after an incident, can be beneficial for both forests and economics. However, the professor refutes the author's stance and explains why the conclusions are flawed.
First of all, the passage asserts that removing dead trees can accelerate the growth of new trees by releasing the occupied space. On the contrary, the lecturer mentions that such trees are able to enhance the soil quality in the long run. If one removes these trees from a forest, the soil will probably suffer from a lack of nutrients, and consequently, the growth of new trees will be limited.
Secondly, the article argues that insects such as spruce bark beetle can occupy the dead trees and deteriorate the forest in the future. The woman rejects this idea by stating that such insects have lived in mentioned forests for years without damaging their surroundings. In addition, dead trees are also a habitat for useful animals such as birds, which can be advantageous for the forest in the future.
Thirdly, the reading maintains that salvage logging can help the economy by offering new jobs and providing industries with wood resources. According to the listening, in contrast, cleaning forests are only practical if a nation uses high-end facilities such as helicopters that are expensive. Hence, the cost of this action outweighs its profits. Furthermore, the jobs are temporary, and these workers are usually experts from other states rather than locals; Therefore, there is no overall economic merit in the process of salvage logging.
In conclusion, the passage presents three reasons in support of salvage logging, but the professor provides three contradicting explanations to attack the ideas in the passage.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 203, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ics. However, the professor refutes the authors stance and explains why the conclusions...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, in addition, in conclusion, in contrast, such as, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1520.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27777777778 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68425909956 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565972222222 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 456.3 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.0124238305 49.2860985944 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.923076923 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1538461538 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 14.8461538462 7.06452816374 210% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.468885864478 0.272083759551 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.14564948795 0.0996497079465 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0931403140471 0.0662205650399 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.223949915233 0.162205337803 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0905276312757 0.0443174109184 204% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.83 8.42419426049 117% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 63.6247240618 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => 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.