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.
In the article the author explains three reasons critics pointed out against the let it burn policy used by the US government. The lecturer discusses the points and argues that the let it burn policy is not wrong considering fire doesn't just bring forth distruction but may give rise to new opportunities for the ecosystem.
First, the passage points out the damage that befell the vegetation and the destruction of flora and fauna. The lecturer, mentions that due to the fire the land could be colonized by new plants. For example, after the trees were destroyed plants needing wide space with no shade could have subsituted the trees, or plants with seeds needing a high temprature started to grow.
Second, the author points out many large animals had run away from their habitats and may never come back, as well as concerns towards the food chain being disrupted making hard for the animals to thrive in the environment. On the other hand, the lecturer points out that many smaller animals gained an apportunity to thrive in the environment with new vegetation suited for them which led to predators to follow them to find food.
Third, the critics were worried that the parks attraction as a tourist spot would demenish. The lecturer argues that this issue would arise only if the situation repeated each year, pointing out that in 1988 there were a combination of many variables like dry weather and undergrowth that contributed to the possibility of the fire. She points that after that year tourists started to come back; hence, the fire wasn't a point of concern.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 231, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...rn policy is not wrong considering fire doesnt just bring forth distruction but may gi...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 42, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'parks'' or 'park's'?
Suggestion: parks'; park's
...hird, the critics were worried that the parks attraction as a tourist spot would deme...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 412, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...s started to come back; hence, the fire wasnt a point of concern.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, if, may, second, so, third, well, for example, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1308.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 268.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88059701493 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04607285448 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46665216672 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.600746268657 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 387.9 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 56.0820827003 49.2860985944 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.8 110.228320801 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.8 21.698381199 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.5 7.06452816374 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.121656706647 0.272083759551 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0524880889743 0.0996497079465 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0371165784458 0.0662205650399 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0767263503358 0.162205337803 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0467054141867 0.0443174109184 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 62.01 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.32 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.