tpo 55
Because of climate change, more and more land that was once used to grow crops or provide food for animals is turning to dry, unusable desert land. There are many proposals about how to stop this process, known as desertification. A number of proposals involve growing trees, because trees can help protect soil and provide many other benefits to fight against desertification. Some scientists have proposed that the best way to grow trees in dry areas in danger of desertification is by using a box-shaped device surrounding the young tree. The device collects water that condenses from vapor in the atmosphere and helps the tree to grow. However, other scientists believe that this device will not be successful in fighting against desertification for the following reasons.
First, at a cost of 25 U S. dollars each, the device would make growing trees a prohibitively expensive process. Meaningful efforts to fight desertification involve growing millions of trees. Some countries most affected by desertification cannot afford to buy devices for millions of trees
Second, plans for fighting desertification involve asking local people to install and maintain the devices. People living in some of the areas most affected by desertification work long days in harsh conditions: sometimes barely managing to provide food for their families. It would be difficult to motivate these people to look after trees that cannot serve as a source of food for them.
Third, the device's ability to collect and conserve water is limited. Each one provides only enough water to keep a small tree alive. Trees that have outgrown the device have to deal with unforgiving environmental conditions on their own. In some places where the devices are being tried, six months can pass without a drop of rain. Once the trees become too big for the device, they may not be able to survive in such a harsh environment.
The reading and lecturer are both about a device which can stop desertification in a certain area. The author of the reading feels that the device will not successfully fight against the desertification and presents some reasons for holding this aspect. The lecturer challenged the claim made by the author. She is on the opinion that none of the reasons is convincing.
To begin with, the author argues that the device is very expensive and some country will not able to afford. The specific argument challenged by the lecturer. She mentions that this device can be reused. She also elaborates by bringing the point that it can be used for at least twenty trees, thus the cost is reasonable.
Second, the author suggests that people live in the desert area are very poor and difficult to pursue them to use the device. He also claims that in extreme weather they sometime could not afford their food then how they afford this kind of expensive device. The lecturer rebuts this by mentioning that this device not only helps to grow the plant but also can grow vegetable. She also adds that people can eat this vegetable and also branches of the tree they can use as firewood.
Third, the author posits that the device cannot store enough water. He also states that when the tree becomes big this device will not enough for the tree to survive. In contrast, the lecturer position is that if the root of the trees reaches the level of water they can survive even the device is removed. She also additionally says, in Sahara desert, 90% of the trees thrive in this way even the device remove two years ago.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 255, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...s some reasons for holding this aspect. The lecturer challenged the claim made by t...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, second, so, then, third, thus, at least, in contrast, kind of, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 22.412803532 152% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1335.0 1373.03311258 97% => OK
No of words: 284.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.70070422535 5.08290768461 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.3298766562 2.5805825403 90% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507042253521 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 414.9 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.2179709457 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.4375 110.228320801 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.75 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6875 7.06452816374 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.0882616869049 0.272083759551 32% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0310880407592 0.0996497079465 31% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0268864424395 0.0662205650399 41% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0564174685749 0.162205337803 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0254692331955 0.0443174109184 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.6 13.3589403974 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.68 12.2367328918 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.26 8.42419426049 86% => OK
difficult_words: 50.0 63.6247240618 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => 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.