The reading and the lecture are discussing the policy which is called" let it burn". The author of the reading gives three reasons against this policy, while the speaker casts doubts on each one of the author's reasons.
First, the article states that after the fire happened in one of the most famous national parks, nearly third of the park was destroyed to the extent that some plants completely eradicated. The professor, on the other hand, refutes this claim by mentioning that the fire, in fact, helped the park to be more diverse. She added that new species of plants have grown and small plants existed since there was enough light. Moreover, some seeds needed strong heat to grow as plants which was only possible after the fire.
Second, the text argues that fire affected not only plants, but also animals which they left their natural habitat and their life became under extreme danger. The speaker, however, goes against this supposition by stating that the text did not get the whole picture of the situation. The small bushes that were found after the fire give chances for new small animals to use them, like hare. As a result, new predators for the new animals came to the park. So, it make the park more diverse in animals.
Third, the reading sheds light on the economic effects of these types of fires, and how they made tourists leave the place. The lecturer rebuts this claim as well. She elaborated that this is an exceptional accident that rarely happens. It could be like any unexpected climate change, The tourists came back to the park and they visited it every year since then, so this economic loss was temporary and insignificant.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 463, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'makes'?
Suggestion: makes
...he new animals came to the park. So, it make the park more diverse in animals. Thir...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, then, third, well, while, in fact, as a result, on the other hand
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 : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1385.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 288.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80902777778 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.23457666037 2.5805825403 87% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.597222222222 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 424.8 419.366225166 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.1476019676 49.2860985944 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.3333333333 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.86666666667 7.06452816374 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.257056439968 0.272083759551 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0771734994101 0.0996497079465 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0517723916398 0.0662205650399 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135161826724 0.162205337803 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0597542673423 0.0443174109184 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 13.3589403974 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.2367328918 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.