The speaker and the author hold divergent attitudes toward genetic modification. Through relevent reasons and examples, the lecture extensively refutes the viewpoints stated in the reading.
First, the passage says that genetically modified trees have a big chance to survive for they are hardier than nature tress. However, the professor chanllenges this idea by providing the truth that when the climate changes or insects invasion happens, some of the diversified nature trees may survive, but the uniform trees may all die. Thus, contary to the writer's notion, survival can not be ensured.
Second, the writer indicates that genetically modified tree farmer could obtain greater returns as their trees grow faster and get plenty of fruits. To render disproof, the lecture reveals that the genetically modified tree companies are more likely to charge for tree seeds rather than provide them for free, which futher refutes the example in the reading.
Last, the passage presents that the genetically modified trees can keep pace with increasing needs for wood and save the rare species, whereas the lecture contends that aggressive genetically modified trees can aquire more resources, such as water, nutrients than nature trees. Consequently, nature trees may be crowed out rather than be saved, and this overtures the writer's concept.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 253, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...te changes or insects invasion happens, some of the diversified nature trees may survive, b...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 359, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...trees may all die. Thus, contary to the writers notion, survival can not be ensured. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 350, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...be crowed out rather than be saved, and this overtures the writers concept.
^^^^
Line 7, column 369, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...r than be saved, and this overtures the writers concept.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, however, if, may, second, so, thus, whereas, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 13.0 30.3222958057 43% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1143.0 1373.03311258 83% => OK
No of words: 208.0 270.72406181 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.49519230769 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.79765784423 4.04702891845 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50664335512 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 131.0 145.348785872 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.629807692308 0.540411800872 117% => OK
syllable_count: 343.8 419.366225166 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.484937494 49.2860985944 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.0 110.228320801 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1111111111 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.494795395808 0.272083759551 182% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.194863340117 0.0996497079465 196% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.126213203819 0.0662205650399 191% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.28592357711 0.162205337803 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.13630252023 0.0443174109184 308% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 13.3589403974 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 53.8541721854 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.92 12.2367328918 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.64 8.42419426049 114% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.