Both the reading and the lecture talk about the effects of salvage logging, a process of removing dead trees after fire or storm in forests. Although the author claims that this method is advantageous for the economy, the lecturer finds all reasons dubious and provides three counter reasons to refute them all.
First, the reading states that salvage logging increases the speed of tree growth after a disaster and makes space for more fresh trees. However, the lecturer asserts that cleaning up the forest doesn't help trees to growth and it prevents trees form getting nutrition attained by natural process of decomposition. Since decomposition of dead trees adds plenty amount of necessary substances, the salvage logging causes the soil to lack of needed materials.
Second, the reading explains that the salvage logging reduces the insect infestation and prevents rotting tree wood. On the other hand, the lecturer refuses this idea by stating that insects have been present for almost a hundred years nearby these trees and they didn't have serious damages. She explains that not only insects, but also birds have contributed the health of the forest in long term. Thus, the possible damages by these organisms are much more by salvage logging method.
Third, the reading claims that salvage logging provides opportunities for both economy improvement and job for local settlements. In contrast, the lecturer opposes this idea, suggesting that salvage logging has a tiny role in economy as in severe conditions, the collecting trees is possible just by exploiting special vehicles namely helicopters. Besides, the jobs available in these areas are temporary and not long-lasting and skillful workers are only selected from outside of the area for such jobs, not the local resident. Thus, the idea of job providing is not true for this method.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 195, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...rer asserts that cleaning up the forest doesnt help trees to growth and it prevents tr...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 264, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...ndred years nearby these trees and they didnt have serious damages. She explains that...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, however, second, so, third, thus, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1556.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 297.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23905723906 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52371670469 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 145.348785872 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.572390572391 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 466.2 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.1927206759 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.692307692 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8461538462 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.435306328786 0.272083759551 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.150980728776 0.0996497079465 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0557996846374 0.0662205650399 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.25148105405 0.162205337803 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0585887288181 0.0443174109184 132% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.