The reading and the lecture are both about "let it burn" policy, which is one of the best strategies for natural forest fires. According to this policy, natural fires are not controlled by humans for several reasons. The writer believes that this policy is not a sufficient policy, and provides three essential drawbacks of this rules. However, the professor casts doubt on the claims and refutes each of the rationals states in the reading.
First of all, the reading states that Yellowstone fires caused severe problems for plants and vegetation. He establishes that flames and smoke created a situation where small plants, as well as big trees, could not survive, so the forest destroyed due to this fire. The lecturer challenges this point by saying that this is a natural process of keeping the environment stable. Furthermore, he says that after the fires, diverse plants grow which would not possible without that fire as small trees and vegetables are not compatible with large trees. Moreover, this fires helped to germinate seed which needs colossal heat to do that. So, natural forest fires are not dangerous at all.
Secondly, the writer posits that Yellowstone fires destroyed the natural habitats by forcing them to flee or just by burning them. However, the professor mentions that like vegetables, large varieties of animals came back to the forest and recovered the loss. He informs that small animal like rabbits start increasing after that fires, and large animals also increased. Moreover, a new short and diverse food chain established due to that fires.
Last problems of Yellowstone fires stated in the reading is the local economic loss. Since park destroyed due to fires, and the number of tourists decreased, local business fell. The professor, on the other hand, points out that it was not right because of only one year after that natural calamity, people had to suffer, and after that year, again huge tourists visited that park. He also states that as only in extreme cases this type of fire occurred, so it is less likely that event will happen near future. Therefore, indigenous people were not affected by this policy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 335, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...d provides three essential drawbacks of this rules. However, the professor casts dou...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, however, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, as well as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 12.0772626932 182% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 22.412803532 161% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1814.0 1373.03311258 132% => OK
No of words: 357.0 270.72406181 132% => OK
Chars per words: 5.081232493 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34677393335 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44959865014 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 145.348785872 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546218487395 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 553.5 419.366225166 132% => 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: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.7898878073 49.2860985944 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.4736842105 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7894736842 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.68421052632 7.06452816374 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.32101758541 0.272083759551 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0943667544643 0.0996497079465 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0468802098661 0.0662205650399 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.187011051332 0.162205337803 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0275617981318 0.0443174109184 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.