In the United States, it had been common practice since the late 1960s not to suppress natural forest fires. The "let it burn" policy assumed that forest fire would burn themselves out quickly, without causing much damage. However, in the summer of 1988, forest fires in Yellowstone, the most famous national park in the country, burned for more than two months and spread over a huge area, encompassing more than 800,000 acres. Because of the large scale of the damage, many people called for replacing the "let it burn" policy with a policy of extinguishing forest fires as soon as they appeared. Three kinds of damage caused by the "let it burn" policy were emphasized by critics of the policy.
First, Yellowstone fires caused tremendous damage to the park's trees and other vegetation. When the fires finally died out, nearly one third of Yellowstone's land had been scorched. Trees were charred and blackened from flames and smoke. Smaller plants were entirely incinerated. What had been a national treasure now seemed like a devastated wasteland.
Second, the park wildlife was affected as well. Large animals like deer and elk were seen fleeing the fire. Many smaller species were probably unable to escape. There was also concern that the destruction of habitats and the disruption of food chains would make it impossible for the animals that survived the fire to return.
Third, the fires compromised the value of the park as a tourist attraction, which in turn had negative consequences for the local economy. With several thousand acres of the park engulfed in flames, the tourist season was cut short, and a large number of visitors decided to stay away. Of course, local businesses that depended on park visitors suffered as a result.
The reading and the lecturer both explains about the "let it burn" policy. The reading states that this policy should be changed because of the large damage of forest in 1988. However, the lecturer challenges the claims present in reading. She believes that the policy is beneficial, which is supported by three reasons.
Firstly, According to the reading passage, there is a loss of Park's trees and other vegetation like small plants. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that after the burning of the forest, the land becomes more productive, and the more diverse nature of plants starts to grow up. Additionally, she says there s more variety of plants were growing up.
Secondly, the writing suggests that the destruction of habitats cause many large animals like deer and elk have moved away. In the article, it is said that for smaller species the destruction might affect the food chain too. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that the number of large animals is recovered and there was an ideal habitat for smaller animals. She elaborates on this bringing up the point that there is new plants start to grow and small animals like rabbits and fur, there is much strong habitat. Which provides the food chain stronger than previously.
Finally, the author posits that the fires hamper the number of tourists. Moreover, it impacts the local economy. In contrast, the lecturer's position is that there is no fire every year because there will be no low rainfall, drought, or other cause of disaster which might cause this. She notes that there will be an increase in number of tourist after next year.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 423, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'there are new plants'?
Suggestion: there are new plants
...ates on this bringing up the point that there is new plants start to grow and small animals like ra...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 527, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Which” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... and fur, there is much strong habitat. Which provides the food chain stronger than p...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1383.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97482014388 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41129841015 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553956834532 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 416.7 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.5467413429 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.3529411765 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3529411765 21.698381199 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05882352941 7.06452816374 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.12481591637 0.272083759551 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0347101764175 0.0996497079465 35% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.053084673784 0.0662205650399 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0764260929858 0.162205337803 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0498487312928 0.0443174109184 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.2 13.3589403974 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.25 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.