The article and the lecture are both about the effects of agriculture and human growth population on the birds' habitat. The writer says that the expansion of those has lead to the decline of birds' number. However, the speaker casts doubts on the claims made in the passage.
First, it is true that human activities and the expansion of neighborhoods had negative consequences over some species of birds. But, birds such as seagulls, doves, falcons and so forth, have actually benefited from the proliferation of human settlements, especially in suburbs, by increasing their number. So, the author's standpoint is contradicted by the speaker.
Second, the lecturer admits that agriculture continues to increase, but from a different perspective. The writer thinks that people are going to use more and more land, and thus destroying the natural habitat of wild birds. Anyway, the speaker talks about how less field is going to be used, because the production per meter square will increase. This is a strong counter-argument to the ideas expressed in the passage.
Third, the lecturer admits once again that pesticides damaged birds, in the past. The scientists are aware by the mistakes made heretofore, and they have worked on developing less toxic pesticides. Moreover, they have made great progress on genetics creating species of plants that are more resistant to pests. Furthermore, genetic modified plants require the usage of diminished quantities of pesticides. Once again, the speaker has demonstrated that human activity is not going to produce any harm on birds.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 106, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'birds'' or 'bird's'?
Suggestion: birds'; bird's
...ture and human growth population on the birds habitat. The writer says that the expan...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 316, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...bs, by increasing their number. So, the authors standpoint is contradicted by the speak...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, anyway, but, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, second, so, third, thus, such as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1331.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30278884462 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85204984988 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.589641434263 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 406.8 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.7533572919 49.2860985944 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 88.7333333333 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7333333333 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => 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: 0.267503544919 0.272083759551 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0734783045135 0.0996497079465 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0645751228692 0.0662205650399 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147865088134 0.162205337803 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.05009047838 0.0443174109184 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.16 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.