The reading and the lecture are both about let it burn policy which means that human should not interfere in forest fire extingushing process. While the author argues that this policy should be replaced by another policy under which the forest fire should be extinguished fast, as a result of extensive forest fire in Yellowstone, the lecturer disputes this claim. She states that this policy is a decent one and fire, which is most of the time more creative rather than distructive, is a natural part of the nature. The lecturer casts doubt on the main points made in the passage by providing three reasons.
In the reading, the author begins by syaing that the fire in Yellowstone caused so many damages to trees and vegetation which are the national treasure of that area. However, the professor states that that fire ceated and opportunity for new plants to grow. The vegetation diversity of Yellowstone enhanced and smaller plants, which did not get a chance to grow before, appeared. Moreover, she says that some seeds, that need certain amount of heat to grow, started to germinate under this condition.
Furthermore, according to the passage, many animals specially the smaller ones could not survive and their habitat was ruined by the fire. The professor, on the other hand, points out the appearance of new small plants created the foundation for some samll animals like rabits and heirs to emerge in this area. Consequently, their predators appeared in this area soon after.
Finally, the author brings his argument to close by suggesting that tourism activity declined in this area as the main tourist attraction of that place was burned in fire. No surprisingly, the lecturer takes issue with this claim by contending that the author's claim was right if this kind of disaster would happen every year. She mentions that in that year combination of so many factors such as high velocity wind, low rate rainfall, and so on contributed in that disaster. She states that no similar distructive fire has been reported since then.
To sum up, both the author and the lecturer hold conflicting views on the existence of let it burn policy.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, then, while, kind of, such as, as a result, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 12.0772626932 174% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 22.412803532 152% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 30.3222958057 168% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1794.0 1373.03311258 131% => OK
No of words: 362.0 270.72406181 134% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95580110497 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36191444098 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53675403381 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 145.348785872 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.555248618785 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 551.7 419.366225166 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.1728686429 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.125 110.228320801 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.625 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.75 7.06452816374 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 4.45695364238 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.207642693296 0.272083759551 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.066010626437 0.0996497079465 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0670395264022 0.0662205650399 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100819654888 0.162205337803 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0652184274773 0.0443174109184 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 63.6247240618 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.