The article and the professor mainly argued about the benefits of salvage logging of dead trees to the forest. The article states that abolish of the dead trees are good for both a devastation forest and economy and provide three reasons to support. However, the professor opposes this point by saying it might be good for the recovery but overall it is harmful to the environment and economic benefit is questionable and he refutes each of the author's opinions.
First, the article states that the abolishing of the dead trees used for wood products and it also gives a space for the new plants. The professor debates on this point by saying salvage is not the right condition to grow new plants. He mentioned the decomposition of the trees is a favorable location for the new plants.
Second, the article avers that since decomposition of the wood is a suitable location for the insects, logging is good for the forest to protect from the dangerous diseases. The professor contended this point with an Alaskan forest as an example. He mentioned that spare bark beetle is more in their forest however it is not major damage to that. on the top of that, it is good for the birds to survive.
Finally, the passage climes that it economically benefits and also create new jobs. The professor cast a doubt on this point by saying it is expensive. He illustrated that sometimes they need flyers to remove trees. Furthermore, the jobs are only temporary and it costs more for the training.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 347, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: On
...however it is not major damage to that. on the top of that, it is good for the bir...
^^
Line 4, column 293, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ary and it costs more for the training.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, second, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1229.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 259.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.74517374517 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01166760082 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57248925913 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 124.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.478764478764 0.540411800872 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 384.3 419.366225166 92% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => 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: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.3620260841 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.7857142857 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.21428571429 7.06452816374 60% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.317401471417 0.272083759551 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10966086176 0.0996497079465 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0724210463466 0.0662205650399 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.190967889945 0.162205337803 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0556309890205 0.0443174109184 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.2 13.3589403974 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.27 12.2367328918 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.88 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.