The reading and the lecturer are both about the damage of the forests in the northwestern United States. The author of the reading states that salvage logging is the one way to deal with this problem and provided three reasons for support. However, the lecturer says that salvage logging creates long time environmental damage and refutes each of the author's points.
First, the article claims that after the destruction of forests by fire it takes a long time for the trees to decompose. Furthermore, there would not enough space for other trees to grow which can be solved by salvage logging. Nevertheless, the professor refutes this point by saying that cleaning the trees is not a good solution. He also mentions that if the tree decomposes naturally, it will enrich the soil with nutrients for the future growth of the trees.
Second, the text conveys that spruce bark beetle insect destroys the forest. On the other hand, the lecturer opposes this point by explaining that because of this insects the forest would not be damaged. These insects also lived in Alaska for about 100 years which not affected any trees. Beetle insects also improve the health of forests than by using salvage logging.
Third, the article posits that because of salvage logging there can be economic benefits and jobs can also be increased for local residents. However, the lecturer says that in order to take these destroyed wood trees the industries should use helicopters which costs them a lot. Furthermore, he says that jobs would be given to more experience and trained persons rather than the local residents.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 159, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...his point by explaining that because of this insects the forest would not be damaged...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, third, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1345.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 268.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01865671642 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04607285448 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41153053173 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 145.348785872 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526119402985 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 398.7 419.366225166 95% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 20.6379133971 49.2860985944 42% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 96.0714285714 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1428571429 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.35714285714 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.441886125312 0.272083759551 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.148866731516 0.0996497079465 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0577581460175 0.0662205650399 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.256837364515 0.162205337803 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0281343497569 0.0443174109184 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => 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: 11.84 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.