tpo 38-intg
Both the reading and listening parts offer two opposite views on the efficacy of the internationally established forest protection fund. While the passage presents three main benefits of this fund, the lecturer casts doubt on the effectiveness of these benefits.
First of all, the text refers that the dispersing this fund to owners and farmers will help to save this land as the farmland instead of the industrial land, which has the negative impact on the environment. However, in the audio, the professor refutes this assertion. As he explains, modern farming is not as innocent as assumed. The usage of fertilizer and pesticide pollutes the environment, and their runoff waste caused this harm separates in the bigger region. Consequently, finding the farmers to resisting in modern farming would not prevent the hazards of pollution of the forest.
Secondly, the article purposes the allocation of this fund to villagers and tribal residents to cover their daily demand, to not be obliged to sell their lands to industrial activity, can preserve this land from danger. On the contrary, the instructor rejects this hypothesis too. As he states, the real owner of these forests are not the ordinary people and governors are the possessor of this land. So, this invested money will be paid to the governors which show there is no warranty that the money will be ended up to dweller. Therefore, it is skeptical that money will spend on the above-mentioned purpose.
Finally, meanwhile, the passage states that this fund will protect the biodiversity by establishing the protected forest, the professor, on the other hand, denies this assumption too. As he mentioned, there is no clue that people will spend the fund for establishing the forest to cover and protect biodiversity. Also, there is the feasibility that the fund is used for planting the trees which possess the financial benefits. So, with this possibility, the fund will not protect biodiversity.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, first, however, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, while, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1656.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 319.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19122257053 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84095222105 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.529780564263 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 500.4 419.366225166 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.2233977831 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.5 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9375 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.6875 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
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: 0.0 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: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => 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: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.23 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 63.6247240618 148% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => 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.