The reading and the lecture are both about the declining population of Torreya Taxifolia. The author feels that several options can be effective to increase and preserve population. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. She is of the opinion that these ways are not satisfactory.
To begin with, the author argues that this plant can be grown in its own microclimate to thrive its population. The article mentions that this microclimate is cooler and wetter than others that is favorable for this tree. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that this way is unlikely effective because of the warming temperature of this microclimate. Additionally, she says that global warming significantly affected the temperature and moisture that is unfavorable for these plants to thrive.
Secondly, the writer suggests that moving this plant to completely different location can be effective. In the article, it is said that by moving it to cooler regions that are more suitable for its survival scientists will be able to contribute its population increase. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that another example, the black locust tree, was tested in this way and it was ineffective and more hazardous. She elaborates on this by bringing up the point that black locust trees spread so quickly, so that they damaged other trees, and cause them to become nearly extinct.
Finally, the author posits that preserving Toreya in research centers can be another way to avoid its extinction. Moreover, it is stated in the article that by preserving it there, scientists can monitor and protect its population easily. In contrast, the lecturer’s position is that these trees need large place and diverse population to resist disease because it is relatively impossible to prevent the disease alone. She notes that this research centers have relatively small area for this requirement to prevent and protect these trees from disease.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 184, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ve to increase and preserve population. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 53.0 22.412803532 236% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1667.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 316.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2753164557 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21620550194 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83024465552 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509493670886 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 523.8 419.366225166 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.5520813417 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.0588235294 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5882352941 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06452816374 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.266950029751 0.272083759551 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0825539174252 0.0996497079465 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0506927833522 0.0662205650399 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151668893878 0.162205337803 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0121732450773 0.0443174109184 27% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 53.8541721854 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.