The reader claims three possible arguments to reverse the damage that happened after the forest fire, and this can be done by what is called the salvage logging. And the reader provides reasons for supporting. On the other hand, the speaker counters these specific points and presents clues to call into the information in the passage. He says that the salvage logging results in the additional destroying and each argument presented are questionable.
First, the author discusses the salvage logging can improve the area of dead trees and recover this region to the new one. The speaker cast doubt in this bu telling that the removing the dead plant is not necessarily producing a rich growth area suitable for the new one, Conversely, the rapid eliminating causes the grounds loss their essential nutritions.
Second, the reader says the dead area of the trees attract more harmful insects, while the professor disputes this by explaining that this is right but groundless and the salvage logging may rise to more damage and harmful bigger than the insects.
Third, the reader concur that the increment in the jop apportinities to the workers, the spaker debates this buy saying the expensive fire airplain and technique utilized for suppresing the massive fire make the benefit to the worker and the compeny is immpossible. Moreover, the Governement uses a proffecinal and expert person for this work rather than the ordenary one. And if there are jop all of them are temporary.
Essay evaluation report
causes the grounds loss their essential nutritions.
causes the grounds losing their essential nutritions.
Sentence: Third, the reader concur that the increment in the jop apportinities to the workers, the spaker debates this buy saying the expensive fire airplain and technique utilized for suppresing the massive fire make the benefit to the worker and the compeny is immpossible.
Error: suppresing Suggestion: suppressing
Error: spaker Suggestion: speaker
Error: apportinities Suggestion: opportunities
Error: jop Suggestion: joy
Error: immpossible Suggestion: impossible
Error: compeny Suggestion: company
Error: airplain Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Moreover, the Governement uses a proffecinal and expert person for this work rather than the ordenary one.
Error: ordenary Suggestion: ordinary
Error: proffecinal Suggestion: producing
Sentence: And if there are jop all of them are temporary.
Error: jop Suggestion: joy
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 24 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 12 2
No. of Sentences: 10 12
No. of Words: 245 250
No. of Characters: 1214 1200
No. of Different Words: 141 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.956 4.2
Average Word Length: 4.955 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.493 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 91 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 68 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 40 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 26 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.209 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.62 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 319, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'grounds'' or 'ground's'?
Suggestion: grounds'; ground's
...rsely, the rapid eliminating causes the grounds loss their essential nutritions. Sec...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 110, Rule ID: BUY_VBG[1]
Message: Did you mean 'by'?
Suggestion: by
...to the workers, the spaker debates this buy saying the expensive fire airplain and ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, if, may, moreover, second, so, third, while, 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: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 18.0 30.3222958057 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1242.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 245.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0693877551 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.95632099841 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57037231303 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.583673469388 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 379.8 419.366225166 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.5002684559 49.2860985944 151% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.2 110.228320801 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5 21.698381199 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.6 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.314303992523 0.272083759551 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109374132665 0.0996497079465 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0739408469814 0.0662205650399 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173545715425 0.162205337803 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0470298880906 0.0443174109184 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.14 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.