Both the author and the lecture argue about the continuing effects of human populations and agriculture on birds population. While reading asserts that human population growth will destroy birds' life and endanger their habitats, the lecture refutes these claims by providing some pivotal evidence.
First, the reading states that the growth of human population turns birds' habitat to homes, office and other places they need. Conversely, the lecturer says that urban provides better and larger habitat for most of the birds. In the future, maybe some of the birds' population shrinks but most of them will increase.
Second, according to the passage needs for more agricultural activities causes that birds' home converts to agricultural use. Therefore, less habitat for birds less population they will have. The professor disagrees with this claim because nowadays less and less land is used for agriculture. Humans do not need to destroy more land for crops due to increasing of agricultural yield.
Third, the author declares that the use of chemical pesticides damage birds' life because these harmful materials get into water and food chain. Thus, it can cause problems for birds because they probably drink toxic water or insects even pesticides can prevent the birds from successful reproduction. In opposite to the author, the lecturer dismisses this issue due to the fact that today's pesticide has changed and they are less toxic. Traditonal pesticides were harmful but they became revised. Also, new crops are resistant to pesticides and do not hurt birds.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 248, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...most of the birds. In the future, maybe some of the birds population shrinks but most of th...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 260, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'birds'' or 'bird's'?
Suggestion: birds'; bird's
...birds. In the future, maybe some of the birds population shrinks but most of them wil...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 384, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'todays'' or 'today's'?
Suggestion: todays'; today's
...smisses this issue due to the fact that todays pesticide has changed and they are less...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, first, if, may, second, so, therefore, third, thus, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1325.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 248.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34274193548 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96837696647 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53484753055 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.58064516129 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 407.7 419.366225166 97% => 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: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => 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: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.7697032433 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.6428571429 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7142857143 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.71428571429 7.06452816374 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => 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: 0.521031998834 0.272083759551 191% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.176835141834 0.0996497079465 177% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0880865787899 0.0662205650399 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.29873939784 0.162205337803 184% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.025056569406 0.0443174109184 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.