TPO-20 - Integrated Writing Task

Based on the sets of materials, both the author and the speaker discuss "let it burn" policy, and its pros and cons. The author states that this policy has some negative effects and need to be replaced by another one, while the lecturer casts doubt on this idea and gives several counterarguments in response.

Initially, the author puts forward the idea that "let it burn" policy brings about huge damages to parks' trees and vegetation. On the contrary, the lecturer rejects this thesis by clarifying that this terrible destruction brings opportunities for other plants to grow and the parks' level of diversity will increase after phenomena like Yellowstone fires. For example, after Yellowstone fires, small plants needed open spaces were replaced by trees. Moreover, some kind of seeds required high heat to grow had a chance to appear and grow.

Second, the author posits that the park's wildlife was affected adversely by the policy and damaged food chains made it impossible for animals to survive. Yet again, the lecturer repudiates this idea too. As she says that wildlife recovered itself soon after the event and also provided new opportunities. As small plants appeared in the park, the situation for small animals like rabbits and hairs got better, and thus with the presence of predators, certain food chains got stronger than before.

The last idea proposed in the reading states that the fires made the park less attractive and appealing for tourists, and hence weakened the local economy. On the other hand, the lecturer states that this situation will be true if such events occur every year which is not possible as the conditions were so rare. As a result, the number of visitors eventually will increase every year and local businesses could benefit after that.

Votes
Average: 8 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 36, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'parks'' or 'park's'?
Suggestion: parks'; park's
.... Second, the author posits that the parks wildlife was affected adversely by the ...
^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, hence, if, moreover, second, so, thus, while, for example, kind of, as a result, on the contrary, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 7.30242825607 219% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1515.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13559322034 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51998276351 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.579661016949 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
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: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.1925427867 49.2860985944 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.538461538 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6923076923 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.30769230769 7.06452816374 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.247043143732 0.272083759551 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0807956208632 0.0996497079465 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0575818729514 0.0662205650399 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.137039576916 0.162205337803 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0463236755471 0.0443174109184 105% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => 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.