The main idea of both the passage and the lecture is about the probable effects of steady growth human population on the natural birds, particularly in the United States. Considering this, the author claims that we have resticted birds natural inhabitant. The professor, on the other hand, utterly denies whatever mentioned in the passsage through citing three reasons.
First, both the passage and the lecture talk about destruction of birds natural inhabitant by human's construction . According to the author, as human population continue to expand, they need more land for food, housing and so forth. Therefore, this practice destroy abundant places where bireds used to be sheltered. Nontheless, the lecturer, rejects the author's view and illustrates that although some species of bird may have lost their home, the urban areas provided even better and larger house for other species. For instance, many city dwellers complain about existance of birds in their houses!
Second of all, both the passage and the lecture discuss the issue of increasing agriculture land for producing food which devour our wildlife. The passage goes on to mention that because of the less suitable land for birds to survive, their population have significantly diclined. Nonetheless, the lecturer support the contradictory view as compared to that presented in passage; she describes that thanks to the latest agriculture developments, farmers can obtain more crops per unite of land, which is enable us not to demolish nature.
Finally, the passage and the lecture both discuss detrimental effects of herbicides on the birds. The author of passage states that herbecides can cause problem for birds by their foods or water. However, the professor rebuts it and says that, first, many new kind of herbecided have created which is no more dangerous for animals as well as birds, another reason is that scientists hase produced genetically modified crops which resistant to insects.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 95, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...truction of birds natural inhabitant by humans construction . According to the author,...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 114, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...atural inhabitant by humans construction . According to the author, as human popul...
^^
Line 5, column 505, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'enabled'.
Suggestion: enabled
... more crops per unite of land, which is enable us not to demolish nature. Finally,...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, nonetheless, second, so, therefore, well, for instance, kind of, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1663.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36451612903 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67437918961 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 145.348785872 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.6 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 508.5 419.366225166 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.8830735573 49.2860985944 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.923076923 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8461538462 21.698381199 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2307692308 7.06452816374 145% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
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: 0.25856704441 0.272083759551 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0976190748665 0.0996497079465 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0564168004235 0.0662205650399 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.156122814362 0.162205337803 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0429408184694 0.0443174109184 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.87 8.42419426049 117% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 63.6247240618 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.