The passage provides a list of environmental and economic benefits of the salvage logging operation, which is a process of removing dead trees from the forest after disasters, such as fires or storms. The professor, however, casts doubt on this hypothesis and argues that the process results in severe long term damages both to the forest and the economy.
First of all, the lecturer states that cleaning the dead trees does not necessarily create a more appropriate condition for fresh trees to grow, indicating that the natural decomposition of damaged trees would lead to enriching the soil for the future trees. According to the professor, the salvage logging will cause the forest to lack nutrients essential for the growth of the fresh tree. On the contrary, the writer claims that freeing up the space for new trees is advantageous for the forest to recover.
Furthermore, the professor challenges the claim in the passage that the remained trees would increase the number of the spruce bark beetles, and as a result, those insects would harm the forest significantly. She alleges that not only would not these insects lead to severe damages, but decaying wood can give rise to the number of other insects that are beneficial for the forest as well.
Finally, the professor asserts that salvage logging does not contribute to economic growth by saying that the usage of the remained wood in the industry is a short term benefit. She also states that expensive vehicles, such as a helicopter, is required for the process. This theory contradicts with the information in the part of the writing, according to which, the salvage logging has various economic advantages. Moreover, the listening passage points out that unlike traditional logging operations, the salvage logging requires experienced workers, which are typically outsiders. Consequently, it will not provide local residents with any occupation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 533, Rule ID: NEEDS_FIXED[1]
Message: "requires experienced" is only accepted in certain dialects. For something more widely acceptable, try 'experiencing' or 'to be experienced'.
Suggestion: experiencing; to be experienced
...perations, the salvage logging requires experienced workers, which are typically outsiders....
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, well, such as, as a result, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1614.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24025974026 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75015907481 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.525974025974 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 490.5 419.366225166 117% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.0147200554 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.5 110.228320801 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6666666667 21.698381199 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.5 7.06452816374 163% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.484765089087 0.272083759551 178% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.164155190593 0.0996497079465 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0695698583759 0.0662205650399 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.274251632375 0.162205337803 169% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0507555724486 0.0443174109184 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.23 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 10.7273730684 182% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.