The professor and the author both mainly talked about genetic modification trees which are possible to produce effectively, faster and withstand hard conditions. In the reading passage, it has shown that modification trees have few benefits. The speaker refutes that the idea made by the author and she has three following reasons to support her opinion.
First of all, the lecturer states that modification trees could survive in one particular conditions because they are uniformed with another species in the same forest. Thus, if they were faced to climate change, some of them would not resist so the speaker thinks that the trees are all dying as it is happening.
Secondly, she tells that there are hidden costs to grow up genetically modified trees. By the author, those trees proves the economical benefits because they grow up faster and greater therefore they are more productive and better to save money for pesticides. However, the professor says that after the trees grown up, we could not just replant them. We mandatory pay for the company every single time we plant.
Lastly, the lecturer cast doubt on how affect to the local nature which is questioned in the reading passage. She thinks that modification trees are more aggressive than native one hence among natural environment, native trees would not compete with trees controlled by the technology.
In conclusion, the speaker refutes the main idea made in the reading passage.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 126, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
.... By the author, those trees proves the economical benefits because they grow up faster an...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1225.0 1373.03311258 89% => OK
No of words: 237.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16877637131 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92362132708 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55204858578 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 145.348785872 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.594936708861 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 380.7 419.366225166 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.5822210662 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.083333333 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.75 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.41666666667 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More 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: 0.321735355485 0.272083759551 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106905551447 0.0996497079465 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0833307005622 0.0662205650399 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1495412609 0.162205337803 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0886766880077 0.0443174109184 200% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.