The reading passage and the lecture are both about the grounds why the yellow cedar enjoyed a reduction in numbers in the recent century in northwestern in North America. The writer explains some hypotheses which the lecturer in the listening passage disagrees and provide some evidence to refute all the mentioned reasons in the article to indicate his disagreement.
First of all, the author begins by stating that one remarkable reason in decreasing these kinds of trees, might owing to beetle attacked. Actually, these insects feed on the wood. The lecturer, however, disagrees. He declares that the beetles eat the trees which have already destroyed since the others are poisonous.
Furthermore, the author claims that brown bears' clawing contributes to declining these species as long as their bark includes a massive amount of sugar content. Again, the professor believes there are flaws in the writer's argument. The speaker holds that although in some circumstances the bears somehow give rise to population decline, in the major area there are no bears, such as islands.
Lastly, the article mentioned that the regular climate modifications lead to annihilate the root system. This occurrence is because of changes in seasonal time. In such a situation, the roots will be frozen by flourishing in the late winter instead of the early spring. In turn, the professor in the listening passage is doubtful that this is accurate. He states that there are much more trees in the higher elevations which they enjoy colder temperatures in the winter without no hurt. As a result, the coldness is not a reasonable hypothesis to justify the yellow cedar trees population decrease.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 214, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ofessor believes there are flaws in the writers argument. The speaker holds that althou...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, so, such as, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1413.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 272.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19485294118 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06108636974 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70454080794 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.606617647059 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 441.9 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => 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: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.1412063203 49.2860985944 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.2 110.228320801 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1333333333 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.26666666667 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.309120748947 0.272083759551 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0812001817589 0.0996497079465 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0589109627335 0.0662205650399 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150517337327 0.162205337803 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0668847277983 0.0443174109184 151% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.41 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.