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 fires 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 lecture are about the natural process of fire in the forest i.e. "let it burn" policy. In the reading, the author feels that it would have a pernicious effect when there would be no external force to control the forest fire, and provides three reasons for support. The lecturer challenged on it by claiming that it is a natural process, and it would be innocuous, and refutes each of the authors' reasons.
To begin with, the reading says that it would cause a decline in the population of the vegetation even up to one third and even cause devastation of the parks and wasteland. However, the speaker explains that although there may be a chance of burning off the forest, there would be an equal opportunity for growing of the new vegetation along with the diverse types of species in the region of scorching. She additionally supports by providing evidence: Many smaller plants start to grow in the burned parts and many seeds that required high amount of temperature for the process of germination start after the forest fire.
Secondly, the article posits that forest fire affects wildlife like deer and elk, and even small animals cannot escape from it. The lecturer contradicts by discussing that like fire has the chances of revival of small plants, it let to emerge small animals like Rabbit and hare. Further, he said that it would help in balancing the ecosystem due to the diverse food chain.
Finally, the reading argues that forest fire has negative impacts on the local economy after the burning of natural flora and fauna, reducing the number of visitors. On the contrary, the professor opposes on it by saying that this forest fire is very unusual, and takes place by the different factors: low rain, strong wind. According to him, after 1989, forest fire does not have occur thereby, and populations of the visitors increased then.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 381, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'occurred'.
Suggestion: occurred
..., after 1989, forest fire does not have occur thereby, and populations of the visitor...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 30.3222958057 162% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1558.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 320.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.86875 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22948505376 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45382354704 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553125 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 486.0 419.366225166 116% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.51434878587 396% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 39.4102355571 49.2860985944 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.833333333 110.228320801 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6666666667 21.698381199 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.66666666667 7.06452816374 109% => 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 : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.288297326613 0.272083759551 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106410043944 0.0996497079465 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0568425173831 0.0662205650399 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173017644665 0.162205337803 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0479774777993 0.0443174109184 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.3589403974 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => 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.