The passage and lecture both discuss three statements about a process which is the kind of damage caused by "let it burn" policy. The reading states that this policy caused a large scale of damage whereby people are demanding to replace it by a policy of extinguishing forest fires as soon as they appeared, and they gave three kinds of damage caused by the "let it burn" policy to support their claim. However, the professor in the lecture explains that this policy can be beneficial with a creative role, and refutes each point made in the article.
First, the reading claims that "let it burn" lead to a devastating damage to the park's trees and vegetation. However, the lecture invalidates this point by explaining that after the 1988 Yellowstone fire, the vegetation became more diverse. It created opportunity for certain plants to grow, by which the areas destroyed by trees became a suitable environment for small vegetation to raise. Another example would be some seeds which germinate only by high temperatures.
Second, the reading posits that Yellowstone fires caused a great damage to the wildlife. The lecturer looked at the fires from different perspective by which those fires created new opportunities as well. The growth of small plants created an ideal habitat for small animals like rabbits. If those animals thrive, the food chain will become extremely affected, whereby now it became more powerful.
Finally, the reading asserts that the fires reduced tourists attraction to the area, and it had negative impact on local economy and businesses. On the other hand, the lecture explained that in the year 1988, there were plentiful of unusual combination of factors like low rainfall, which exaggerated the damage. But those fires do not happen every year. In fact, they have not been occurring since that year and tourists came to visit the next year and each year after that.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 58, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'great damage'.
Suggestion: great damage
...ng posits that Yellowstone fires caused a great damage to the wildlife. The lecturer looked at...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 53, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'tourists'' or 'tourist's'?
Suggestion: tourists'; tourist's
... reading asserts that the fires reduced tourists attraction to the area, and it had nega...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, look, second, so, well, in fact, kind of, 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: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1622.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 315.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14920634921 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6010444246 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552380952381 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 511.2 419.366225166 122% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => 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: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.1825854306 49.2860985944 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.133333333 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.2 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.340080343346 0.272083759551 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101517165144 0.0996497079465 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0594747685852 0.0662205650399 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.18611966022 0.162205337803 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0301219520561 0.0443174109184 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.