The lecture and the reading both talk about natural wild fires and "Let it burn policy". While the reading explains the adverse effects of natural wild fires on ecosystem and local economy by using example of Yellowstone fire in 1988, the lecture refutes this, saying that fires are part of ecological cycle.
First of all, the reading claims wild fires destroy plant life in the ecosystem. During the 1988 fire in Yellowstone almost one third of the vegetation in park was destroyed. Trees were charred and small plants were wiped out. However the lecture argues that fire brings an opportunity for new plants to appear, which lost to the competition from other plants in the area before. Also, some seeds need heat to start the germination process. This will create more diversity. Furthermore, the professor states that small plants will thrive in absence of large trees.
Next, the reading makes the argument that, along with plants, wildlife also get impacted. Destruction of habitat and food chain disturbs the ecological balance. Small animals like rabbits can't escape the fire and insufficient number of small animals upset the balance. The lecture counters this point by stating the small animals reappeared and started to thrive because of the abundance of grass after the fire; along with the predators depended on small animals.
Lastly, the reading passage argues that fire reduced the number of tourist visiting the park. Ultimate effect was on the local economy depended on the tourists. People avoided the area and season was cut short. The lecture refutes this claim by pointing out that, frequent fires will leave negative impact on the local businesses. That particular year uncommon weather conditions were prime factors for the fire. Moreover, the professor says the Yellowstone park regained its popularity following year. In conclusion, the lecture counters all three claims presented in the reading article.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 228, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...harred and small plants were wiped out. However the lecture argues that fire brings an ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 189, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...cal balance. Small animals like rabbits cant escape the fire and insufficient number...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, moreover, so, third, while, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1641.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2935483871 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44082729361 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570967741935 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 501.3 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.0860011534 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.05 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.5 21.698381199 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.1 7.06452816374 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 4.45695364238 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.312739025545 0.272083759551 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0907637829607 0.0996497079465 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0563454227509 0.0662205650399 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.189814061323 0.162205337803 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0436067674567 0.0443174109184 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.