The passage and the lecture are both about Torreya, which is an evergreen tree that is in danger to be extincted. The author propose three possible solutions to this issue. However, the lecturer believes that these solutions are not quite accurate when confronted with reality.
First, replanting Torreya in original places could represent a failure. The author states that micro-climate of Florida is perfect for Torreya to flourish again. On the other hand, the speaker disagrees because of the climate change that had have a great impact on it. As a consequence of the global warming, the micro-climate has changed becoming drier and destroying the previous conditions for tree to develop. This is an admissible counter-argument to the author's point of view.
Second, assisting migration might have a negative impact on other species. While the writer considers that moving the tree to north is a plausible solution, the lecturer explains that this could mean the end of other endangered plants. He bases his affirmation on a similar past action when another species of tree was planted in a new environment. Indeed the tree prospered there, but its presence affected other plants to their extinction. Thus, this strong counter-point contradicts the passage.
Third, their preservation in research centers is not a viable answer because trees are more likely to suffer from diseases. They need to grow and develop in a natural environment among at least other three species in order to fight against diseases. Therefore, the latter solution is less likely to have success on long term. In conclusion, the author and the lecturer appear to be in total disagreement regarding this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 243, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
... because of the climate change that had have a great impact on it. As a consequence ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 350, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Indeed,
... tree was planted in a new environment. Indeed the tree prospered there, but its prese...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, regarding, second, so, therefore, third, thus, while, at least, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1426.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 272.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24264705882 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06108636974 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.830557659 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.613970588235 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 433.8 419.366225166 103% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.748882933 49.2860985944 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 83.8823529412 110.228320801 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0 21.698381199 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.88235294118 7.06452816374 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.207533752995 0.272083759551 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0607387686672 0.0996497079465 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0584889766462 0.0662205650399 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116448382693 0.162205337803 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0355913657135 0.0443174109184 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.