The reading passage discusses an interesting topic about the "let in burn" policy and the damage that this policy represented for the 1988's Yellowstone fire; moreover the article provides three facts for support the claim. However, the lecture casts doubts on the damage caused by the "let in burn" policy, arguing that fires can represent destruction but also creation, and opposes each of the points exposes by the article.
First, the reading passage explains that fire provoked invaluable damage to vegetation and trees. On the contrary, the lecture argues that the damage was actually open opportunities to other especies to success and create more diversity.
Secondly, the reading passage sustains that as well as the vegetation, the wildlife was also affected deeply for the fire damage destroying the habitats and cutting the food chain when small animals could not escape. This point is refute by the lecture by explaining that again the fire opened opportunities for other animals like rabbits and heirs to reproduce without the competition and prey to stop them. By the same token, the food chain would be restored once small animals attract other preys.
Finally, the reading passage mentions the negative business year as consequence of the fire for the store and business that live from turists that avoided visiting the park because its devastation. The lecture challenges this claim by sustaining that many factors, not only the fire, influenced the decrease of visitors that year. Thus, the lecture refute the article for blame only the fire.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 232, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'refuted'.
Suggestion: refuted
...animals could not escape. This point is refute by the lecture by explaining that again...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, well, as well as, on the contrary, by the same token
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1339.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 251.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33466135458 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98032404683 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5399960893 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565737051793 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 416.7 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.4522410355 49.2860985944 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.9 110.228320801 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1 21.698381199 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 14.0 7.06452816374 198% => 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: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.295822379297 0.272083759551 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11690243947 0.0996497079465 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0456030947451 0.0662205650399 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.170002739437 0.162205337803 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0400521005627 0.0443174109184 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 53.8541721854 70% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.93 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.