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 lecturer refutes all three claims presented in the reading passage about the devastating effect of forest fires in Yellowstone, a famous national park in the country. According to the 'let it burn' policy, no one can suppress the wildfires. But this adversely affected the vegetation, wildlife, and tourists to this park. However, the professor states that wildfires are destructive and creative and in the lecture, she mentions the after-effects of this fire of 1988.
First of all, the reading posits that the Yellowstone fire caused unprecedented damage to the park's vegetation, turning it to a wasteland. The professor countered this argument by contending that the fire made the land diverse of numerous plants. It gave opportunities to plants that struggle to survive. For instance, small plants that need unshaded space to grow rapidly flourished in the area as the trees were scorched out as a result of the fire. The seeds that utilize high heat for germination, grew after this. From these examples, the professor claims that the wildfire is creative to nature.
Then she argued that the Yellowstone fire ameliorates the opportunities of animals too. For instance, by feeding the small plants rabbits and heirs got better nutrition which in turn had a profound effect on predators to feed these animals. This creates a stronger food chain than before.
Finally, the reading suggests that the tourist value of this national park reduced as an impact of Yellowstone forest fire plus local businesses messed up. On the contrary, the tutor says that this didn't affect the tourist flow to the park in the following years. An unusual combination of low rainfall, dry climate aggregates the conditions of wildfire of 1988 but that trend never returns.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 95, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'parks'' or 'park's'?
Suggestion: parks'; park's
...fire caused unprecedented damage to the parks vegetation, turning it to a wasteland. ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 199, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... the contrary, the tutor says that this didnt affect the tourist flow to the park in ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, so, then, for instance, as a result, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 10.4613686534 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1480.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 286.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17482517483 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7728397053 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.587412587413 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 447.3 419.366225166 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.3159154269 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.5 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.875 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.25 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.152115780609 0.272083759551 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0444689246175 0.0996497079465 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0434978531739 0.0662205650399 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0889323205644 0.162205337803 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0424003772978 0.0443174109184 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.41 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.5 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.