Both the lecture and the reading are about salvage logging. The writer states salvage logging has beneficial to nature and economically better solution and gives three reasons of support. However, the professor states salvage logging is harmful to forest and its economical benefits are small. Professor refutes each of the authors reasons.
First, the author states that salvage logging eliminate the dead trees on the forest and it opens a room for new frees. The professor refutes this point by stating that this method does not create right condition for new trees. He states the soil of forrest gets nutrition from those dead trees. If salvage logging remove all trees, in the future soil will not able to get necessary nutrition for trees. So salvage logging will not create suitable environment for trees.
Second, the passage claims that by removing dead trees on the forest salvage logging also will kill the insects which dangerous for trees. On the other hand, the professor casts doubt onto this idea by stating dead trees are not harmful for forest. He states one example which insects can live in one forest without damage to forest. What's more, many animals such as birds use dead trees. Removing dead trees also will eliminate these animals. He states in longer run salvage logging is more harmful than dead trees.
Third, salvage logging has economical advantages. Nevertheless, the lecturer states economical advantages of salvage logging are small. He claims Helicopter and other wheels use in this method. Moreover, these additional jobs are not permanent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 264, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
...ge logging is harmful to forest and its economical benefits are small. Professor refutes e...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 335, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
...in one forest without damage to forest. Whats more, many animals such as birds use de...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, third, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1330.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 256.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1953125 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.32711544806 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5078125 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 407.7 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.8028930526 49.2860985944 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 70.0 110.228320801 64% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.4736842105 21.698381199 62% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06452816374 71% => 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 : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less 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: 0.43945231067 0.272083759551 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.156195331257 0.0996497079465 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0952205326402 0.0662205650399 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.275444592458 0.162205337803 170% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.106719394291 0.0443174109184 241% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.8 13.3589403974 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.28 53.8541721854 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.29 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.55 8.42419426049 90% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 63.6247240618 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.0 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.