The reading passage focuses on the issue of genetic trees, contending that large scale application of them would bring much benefit. The professor in the lecture explores the same issue. However, the professor believes that genetic trees would bring more problems and cost more than natural trees, which casts doubt on what the reading passage believes. Ample evidence is provided by the professor to bolster her point.
First, although the reading passage claims that genetic trees would be hardier and more likely to survive against tough environment like pest disasters than natural counterparts, the professor argues that resistance of genetic trees are not ensured. This is because genetic diversity in natural trees guarantees that at least some of them might survive in tough conditions. While the genetic trees are genetically uniform, all of them might be destroyed by new difficulties like climate change.
Moreover, in spite of the claim in the reading passage that genetic trees would bring a number of economic benefits to the farmers, the professor asserts that cost of farmers might climb up. Growing natural trees with seeds would be free after one round. On the other hand, farmers would have to pay every time they plant genetic trees.
Finally, the professor argues that genetic trees might lead to more damage to the environment, whereas it is considered in the reading passage that planting genetic trees could prevent the overexploitation of wild trees. Due to the fact that genetic trees can grow more aggresively, they may outperform the wild trees in the competition for natural resources like underground water. And eventually wild trees might be wiped out in the same region.
Based on these reasons, the professor precisely pinpoints the weaknesses of the reading passage and proves the core view point in the reading passage, that genetically modified trees on a large scale would bring tremendous benefits, is unconvincing as it stands.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, so, whereas, while, at least, in spite of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 5.04856512141 297% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1666.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 315.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28888888889 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58817981005 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.501587301587 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 500.4 419.366225166 119% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.6119300033 49.2860985944 139% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.0 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.42857142857 7.06452816374 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.455318186894 0.272083759551 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.179630908115 0.0996497079465 180% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0909683603646 0.0662205650399 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.27829363926 0.162205337803 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0862807141001 0.0443174109184 195% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.