the united states expansive national park system admission fees
The reading passage presents three arguments for abolishing the admission fees for national parks in the United states. However, the speaker in the lecture casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He mentions that the fees must continue.
First of all, the author assumes that there should be no charge to enter the national parks since they are public property and citizens of the country should enjoy the parks for free. Nevertheless, the lecturer offsets this idea by declaring that the parks rely on the revenue from fees to pay the workers' salaries and insure the facilities are up-to-date. According to the lecture, the government would have to increase federal and state taxes to cover these expense in case the income from admission fees was lost. Thus, the lecturer asserts that it's better to leave the fees in place and let people who want to use the parks pay the cost.
Secondly, the writer holds that charging money for admission could discourage visitors from coming to the parks, especially large groups who would prefer to stay several days since they would end up paying exorbitant rates and they would choose to go to other entertainment venues. In contrast, the lecturer challenges this scenario by saying that the fees actually encourages more people to hang out in national parks. He further elaborates that the YS park gets thousands of visitors each year although they charge a high fee for entrance. Therefore, abrogating or scraping the entrance fees could lead the park to become overcrowded and unpleasant. On the other hand, maintaining fees for large parks would encourage people to try smaller parks which have lower ticket prices.
Lastly, the excerpt contends that checking every single person for tickets is time-consuming and results in long waiting times and long lines. In addition, this tedious task exhausts workers and make them unavailable to do other work in the park. Nonetheless, the listening posits that upholding the entrance fees guarantees high quality of service and safety in the park. The main reason behind this rationale is that cars would have to go through many checkpoints where there would be an opportunity for park rangers to inspect for any suspicious objects that might pose a threat.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 584, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cious objects that might pose a threat.
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, however, lastly, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, in addition, in contrast, first of all, 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: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 30.3222958057 158% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1897.0 1373.03311258 138% => OK
No of words: 373.0 270.72406181 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08579088472 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39467950092 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50290747994 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 145.348785872 148% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.576407506702 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 563.4 419.366225166 134% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => 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: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.0518246034 49.2860985944 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.5625 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3125 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.8125 7.06452816374 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.277255490536 0.272083759551 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0946831133017 0.0996497079465 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0675601767355 0.0662205650399 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183232553926 0.162205337803 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0645860629368 0.0443174109184 146% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 63.6247240618 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.