TPO 55 integrated
The passage and the lecture are both about the possibility of using such devices for growing trees to fight against desertification. The author presents three reasons that the devices are not useful for this goal. On the other hand, the lecturer claims that the reasons mentioned in the reading are not very convincing and the devices are practical.
In the passage, the writer begins by stating that since each device costs 25 dollars, the whole process would be too expensive. The professor, however, asserts that the device is reusable and can be utilized 20 times or more. So the process will not be so expensive.
The author also claims that people who live in harsh climates might look at the trees as a food supply and do not attend the project. Conversely, the lecturer argues this viewpoint, mentioning that some of the trees cannot use for food and the local people who attend the project can get rewards for doing it. For instance, they can collect water from other plants or help them grow more food. Local people can also use trees' branches as firewoods.
Finally, the writer points out that since the volume of devices is limited, the trees might die in harsh conditions because of a lack of water. In contrast, the lecturer states that the devices help the trees to have long roots and these roots can reach underground water and help the trees to survive.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 199, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
... argues this viewpoint, mentioning that some of the trees cannot use for food and the local...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, finally, however, if, look, so, for instance, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1144.0 1373.03311258 83% => OK
No of words: 239.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.78661087866 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.93187294222 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.34415696253 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.543933054393 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 342.0 419.366225166 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => 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: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.0675644658 49.2860985944 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.3333333333 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9166666667 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.83333333333 7.06452816374 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.462118428289 0.272083759551 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.165640774573 0.0996497079465 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0727321934488 0.0662205650399 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.252647077763 0.162205337803 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0530618653492 0.0443174109184 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 53.8541721854 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 11.0289183223 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.5 12.2367328918 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 51.0 63.6247240618 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.