Reading and lecture are debating whether or not salvage logging offers benefits for forests and economy. On the one hand, the writer asserts that it has important positive implications, providing three reasons for support. However, the lecturer casts doubts on the claims made by the writer, saying that his arguments are not sustainable when compared to long-term environmental advantages.
First, cleaning up the forests of dead trees harms the habitat because it deprives the soil of important nutrients. In other words, dead trees provide essential nutritive substances which are vital for the revitalization of the forest, and for new trees to grow up. So, this standpoint clearly contradicts the passage.
Second, the writer affirms that spruce bark beetles harm the environment because they are going to infest the fallen trees. Anyway, the lecturer refuses this idea, by adding that spruce bark beetles have been living in these kinds of habitats over the last century, and no tremendous damages were registered. Moreover, there are other species such as birds and other insects which lives in this habitat and benefit from dead trees. Furthermore, some insects have the role to maintain the forests prosperous and healthy on long-term, by exterminating the harmful insects.
Third, the economic gains are insignificant and on short-term. This is because sometimes forests see
enormous damages and people can enter the space only by using helicopters and vehicles which are expensive to maintain. In addition to this, regarding the employment issue, this argument is not relevant, because companies prefer hiring outsiders who have experienced and who are specially trained for these kinds of missions. Therefore, local residents are less likely to be hired, even temporary. As a result, this argument is refuted by the lecturer, who proves once again that salvage logging does not provide any important benefits.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 34, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
Reading and lecture are debating whether or not salvage logging offers benefits for for...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 101, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...m. This is because sometimes forests see enormous damages and people can enter th...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
anyway, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, regarding, second, so, therefore, third, in addition, such as, as a result, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1633.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 300.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44333333333 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71280707427 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.616666666667 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 501.3 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.0181971161 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.866666667 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.4 7.06452816374 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.345187383516 0.272083759551 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101397919139 0.0996497079465 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0751639159406 0.0662205650399 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169664594674 0.162205337803 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0661347413333 0.0443174109184 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.89 8.42419426049 117% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 63.6247240618 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.