Tpo 38- integrated task
The reading and the lecture discuss the possible effect of devoting international funds for recovering forests around the world. The reading explains some benefits of this suggestion for improving the agriculture, local economy and biodiversity. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the reading notions by stating several reasons.
First of all, the writer claims that devoting some budget for protecting the forest from deforestation by allocating the lands for cultivation can have some benefits for the forests. In contrast, the lecturer point outs the fact that harvesting the forests' trees for agriculture can cause negative effects on protecting forests. In addition, she adds that using many kinds of fertilizer and chemical pesticide can cause more polluted runoff and water contamination in that area. Therefore, argriculering in the forest area cannot be a good solution for forest conservation.
Secondly, the author mentions that paying the international funds to the local villager can help them to improve their economic condition and encourage them to keep forest safe. Conversely, the professor rejects this notion by stating that because the local villagers are not governments, they may not pay this money for protecting the forest. Also, There is any guarantee to prove that if this money was given to the governments they would use it for protecting the forest area.
Ultimately, the passage maintains that they could devote the international fund for planting some kinds of plant to keep the biodiversity of the forest alive. On the other hand, the professor claims that the local dwellers will plant some types of trees which have economic and commercial purposes for them. Hence, adding new types of trees to the forest cannot recover the biodiversity of the damaged forest. Thus, this solution might not have positive effect on improving the biodiversity of the forest.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, first, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, well, in addition, in contrast, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1615.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 298.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41946308725 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8018446278 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523489932886 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 495.0 419.366225166 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.8254632353 49.2860985944 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.357142857 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2857142857 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.8571428571 7.06452816374 154% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 53.8541721854 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.