The article and the lecture are both about genetically modified trees. In the article, the author states that these trees are beneficial from many points of view. On the other hand, the speaker casts doubts on the claims made in the article, pointing out that knowledge provided in the passage is somewhat inaccurate when compared to reality.
First, modified trees are not very resistant to the environment challenges. The writer says that their likelihood to survive is greater than for nature trees, because of the improvements made by scientists. However, the lecturer does not agree, underlining that climate change and insects can really affect and even extinct them. Thus, this argument contradicts the author's point of view.
Second, economic benefits are overestimated by the writer when he affirms that increased growth rate and larger quantity of fruits, is enough to predict an improvement in economy. Anyway, the speaker emphasis that people who plant modified trees pay more for seeds, because according to the law they have to buy the seeds from special places and they have to obtain the producers' approval to use them. This is a strong counter-point to the ideas expressed in the writing.
Third, genetically modified trees cause great damages to the environment. The writer states that these trees can be a solution against over-exploitation of wild trees, because of the rapid pace they are being cut. In contrast, the lecturer brings arguments that highlight the disastrous consequence of planting modified trees among wild ones. This is because the first ones grow faster and overuse the natural nutrients, in detriment of the latter ones. Therefore, planting modified trees can have monumental consequences on natural environment, destroying its balance. In conclusion, the author and the lecturer seem to be in disagreement regarding this topic.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 371, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'producers'' or 'producer's'?
Suggestion: producers'; producer's
...cial places and they have to obtain the producers approval to use them. This is a strong ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
anyway, first, however, if, really, regarding, second, so, therefore, third, thus, in conclusion, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1582.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 296.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34459459459 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78790530633 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 145.348785872 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.574324324324 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 481.5 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.9803776663 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.875 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06452816374 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.385884976934 0.272083759551 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.115763136711 0.0996497079465 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0845681988324 0.0662205650399 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.208600490736 0.162205337803 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0853689138261 0.0443174109184 193% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 63.6247240618 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.