Both the reading and the lecture discuss salvage logging from different perspectives. The lecture seems to negate all the benefits that the reading has mentioned in the article.
First of all, the author of the reading points out that the salvage logging can clean the forest after it was devastated by fire and help to recover the forest from disasters right away. This point is challenged by the lecture. He restates the fact that the dead trees can decompose naturally to enrich the forest soil and it provides nutrient for the growing of forest.
Secondly, the author of the reading contends that the salvage logging can remove decaying wood, which prevents the population of insects that harm the forest, such as the spruce bark beetle. The lecture rebuts this idea that the spruce bark beetle lives in the forest for a hundred year and it has not damaged the forest at all. Moreover, besides the spruce bark beetle, there are many kinds of birds and insects that benefit for the forest. In fact the salvage logging damages the forest more than harmful insects do.
Finally, the author of the reading states that the salvage logging increases economic because it can provide wood for industries and it also offers job for many local residents. The lecture on the other hand, opposes this reason. He refutes that this wood has to be transported by high vehicle even helicopter, and they are very expensive. Moreover, the lecture puts forth the ideas that salvage logging requires necessary skills, meanwhile, local people have no experience. Likewise, it just gives jobs for people in temporary
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 81, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ends that the salvage logging can remove decaying wood, which prevents the popula...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, finally, first, if, likewise, moreover, second, secondly, so, while, as to, in fact, such as, first of all, on the other hand
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: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => 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: 1335.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 269.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96282527881 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.33193088064 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539033457249 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 410.4 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.603140908 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.3571428571 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2142857143 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.3571428571 7.06452816374 147% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => 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: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.490272386779 0.272083759551 180% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.160521568142 0.0996497079465 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110835414824 0.0662205650399 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.27315554837 0.162205337803 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.127768573166 0.0443174109184 288% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.