TPO20
The reading and lecture are both discuss a policy which allows the forests burn without deliberately suppressed. while the writer states that let it burn policy should replace due to its irrevocable damages, the lecture casts doubt on the claims made in the article. She believes that natural fire's role is not destructive.
First of all, the author claims that during the forest fires like what happened in Yellowstone, many of trees and vegetation damaged heavily. Trees were charred, and small plants incinerated. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He asserts that after the fire, plants became diverse in Yellowstone park. Since it turned into the area without trees, those small plans which need open space found the opportunities to grow.
The next point brought up is that forest fires affect wildlife as well as vegetation. The writer declares that large animals were seen fleeing in the fire when the small species were unable to scape and perished in the fire. However, the professor says that no population decline was seen in the Yellowstone after the fire. She elaborates on this by mentioning that new vegetation cover invite new species such as rabbits and hares which they invite their predators as well
Finally, the author mentions that fires compromised the local economy which relays on park's visitors. He argues that a decline in the numbers of tourists affects badly on the local businesses. The lecturer, on the other hand, feels that visitors come back after the fire since this phenomenon is not every year.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 114, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: While
...s burn without deliberately suppressed. while the writer states that let it burn poli...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 168, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...er states that let it burn policy should replace due to its irrevocable damages, ...
^^
Line 1, column 295, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'fires'' or 'fire's'?
Suggestion: fires'; fire's
... the article. She believes that natural fires role is not destructive. First of a...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ch they invite their predators as well Finally, the author mentions that fires...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, so, well, while, such as, as well as, first of all, 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: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1296.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 255.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08235294118 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99608801488 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47561269353 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.596078431373 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 401.4 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
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: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.7584503339 49.2860985944 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.5714285714 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2142857143 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.360404321234 0.272083759551 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111471160233 0.0996497079465 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0620122011882 0.0662205650399 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.19798402296 0.162205337803 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.03476708957 0.0443174109184 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.