TPO20-“let in” policy
The lecturer and the passage discuss the "let it burn" for the forests policy. Although the passage claims that thus policy is harmful for forests by providing a huge damage, destroy the wildlife, and negative effect on tourisms, the speaker refutes thes idea through a number of reasons which will be described in this report.
First and foremost, although fire has a negative effect on the environment, the yellowstone forest's fire provided an advantage to this forest. This accident afforded an opportunity for another vegetation species to grow in the forest. For instance, there are a large number of plants which cannot grow on a shaded space and this matter provide them this opportunity to germinate in this forest.
Furthermore, unlike the passage thish states that this policy can be harmful for wildlife as well as their food chain and the animals could not survive from such these fires, the speaker argues that at the initiate of the fire the heat was not at high level and the animals could escape from the forest. In addition, the professor imply that the animal's poplulation have been recoverd throughout the time. Also, another ideal habitats have been created for animals such rabbits which could not live before due to the threatening of the predators and the food chain have become stronger either.
Finally, although the passage says that this fire accident had a negative aspect for tourism's industry, the professor disagress by mentioning that such these phenomans would not be happend every year. In fact the cause of this fire was the low rain on that year which is not happen all the time. She also states that the number of tourism have not been changed and the tourisms came back the year after this fire.
Thorought these reasons which have been described above, the passage's claims are rejected by the professor.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 74, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'forests'' or 'forest's'?
Suggestion: forests'; forest's
...uss the 'let it burn' for the forests policy. Although the passage claims tha...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 260, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... in the forest. For instance, there are a large number of plants which cannot grow on a shaded sp...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 276, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'happened'.
Suggestion: happened
... the low rain on that year which is not happen all the time. She also states that the ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, if, so, thus, well, for instance, in addition, in fact, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1557.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02258064516 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39933436833 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503225806452 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 479.7 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.2777719568 49.2860985944 134% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.75 110.228320801 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8333333333 21.698381199 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.41666666667 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.23770862835 0.272083759551 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0962249850167 0.0996497079465 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0442453674118 0.0662205650399 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124476697593 0.162205337803 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0479301460013 0.0443174109184 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => 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.