The reading mentions that ''Let it burn'' policy is assumed to be harmful for forests especially after 1988 and provides three reasons in support. Nonetheless, the professor in the lecture believes that the idea in the reading is not convincing and provides three specific points to underscore her standpoint.
First, the reading passage states that Yellowstone fires in 1988 caused outstanding damage to vegetation and trees. The professor repudiates this point by providing some opportunities in this environment. She asserts that by the time trees die out, more plants find the situation prepared for growing. Actually, instead of having one big tree, it is possible to have smaller plants. What's more, big plants consume all of the sun's energy, however, whenever they died, smaller plants could be exposed to much more sunlight.
Second, the passage mentions that the park wildlife was destroyed as well and large animals escaped. However, the professor says that forest-fires provide new foundation for diverse wildlife. She explains that smaller plants provide new source of foods for animals such as rabbits and other predator would have seen to look for new prays. At the end of this reason, the professor says that smaller plants are strong supply which would guarantee animals' life.
Third, the passage avers that tourist attraction is completely destroyed and this phenomenon poses many negative points to local economy. The lecturer repudiates this point by overseeing the matter in a larger scale. She points out that the attenuations of tourist have root in other elements such as rainfall which changes the soil quality from solid to swampy. She also says that each year, bunches of tourists come to see and the year after year the situation becomes better.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 384, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
... it is possible to have smaller plants. Whats more, big plants consume all of the sun...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 415, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
... plants. Whats more, big plants consume all of the suns energy, however, whenever they die...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 426, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'suns'' or 'sun's'?
Suggestion: suns'; sun's
...ats more, big plants consume all of the suns energy, however, whenever they died, sm...
^^^^
Line 3, column 500, Rule ID: TO_TOO[2]
Message: Did you mean 'too'?
Suggestion: too
...y died, smaller plants could be exposed to much more sunlight. Second, the pass...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, however, if, look, nonetheless, second, so, third, well, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1495.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24561403509 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53881896235 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.582456140351 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 439.2 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 26.225856622 49.2860985944 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 99.6666666667 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.8 7.06452816374 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.226248670675 0.272083759551 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0726583781548 0.0996497079465 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0542230420931 0.0662205650399 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126844437439 0.162205337803 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0487562289774 0.0443174109184 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.