Given the materials, the article as well as the lecture discusses how to allocate international forest protection fund to prevent deforestation from being a threat to many industries, economies and other important aspects of the society. The author states that the international budget can be spent on three main regions which lead to hopefully resist against the endangered forests. That being said, the lecturer provides several ideas to repudiate this claim.
Initially, the author says that since farmers, land owners and government require money to resist against logged industry and oil companies, the budget should be allocated to these people in order to protect the forest agriculture. However, the speaker explains that agriculture itself counts as a destructive force among forest ecosystem; the more the population, the more the gathered yields by famers via modern technologies, such as fertilizing and pesticide uses. These technologies are harmful to surrounding environments by emitting run-off waste and causing water pollution.
Second, the writer proclaims that the international fund could be spent on villagers and tribal residents as a fixed salary in purpose of using for their education and other aspects of their life. Thus, never do these people tend to use their farmlands for mentioned industries. Yet again, the lecturer underscores that the international budget are often given to governments, not the residents. So, not only the farm dwellers do not take advantage of allocated fund but also, governments may spend the money on everything except forest protection.
The final point of contention between the reading and the listening passage is protecting forest biodiversity. The author thinks that deforestation is really harmful to most fauna and flora species, owing to the fact that people rely on plants and animals regarding meeting their daily basis demands, which leads to species extinctions. On the other hand, the speaker explains that people plant trees for their commercial purposes. Even plating plantation forest by people is not related to goal of forest biodiversity.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, really, regarding, second, so, thus, well, as to, except for, such as, as well as, 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: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1796.0 1373.03311258 131% => OK
No of words: 326.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50920245399 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24917287072 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89987481901 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 145.348785872 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59509202454 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 548.1 419.366225166 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.1284339679 49.2860985944 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.285714286 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2857142857 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.21428571429 7.06452816374 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
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: 16.2 13.3589403974 121% => 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: 14.97 12.2367328918 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.62 8.42419426049 114% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 63.6247240618 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.