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 lecture and the reading are both talk about ''let it burn' policy'' in yellowstone. The author of the reading feels that there are three kinds of damage caused by the policy. But the lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. She is of the opinion that all claims are faulty.
To begin with, The author says that fires had been caused huge damage to the vegetation and park trees. The article also mentions that small plants were fully destroyed and one third of land had been sorched after yellowstone fires. The specific argument is challenged by the lecturer She argues that fires is a good one for forest and it helps to grow new plants which is not possible if fire is not occurred. Additionally she mentions that plants become more diverse and some plants need a huge amount of heat for growing. So fire creates new opportunity for smaller plants.
Secondly, The writer suggests that fire had been caused huge impact of wildlife and large animals like deer and elk were seen fleeing in the fire and small animals were unable to escape. The article also says that fires damage the habitats and disruption of food chains. However the lecturer refutes the claim and says that small animals like rabbit and hare is increased after fire because of increased small plants so their predator also increased. Thus it maintains the food chain.
Finally, the author posits that park was an important part of local economy because of tourist's attraction. Moreover, in the article it is stated that tourist season was abridged because of flames of large area of park. In contrast the lecturer rebuts the claim and says that tourism sometimes affected because of unusual combination such as wind, rainfall, drought. She notes that tourist can visit yellowstone park after fire and it did not affects the local economy and local business.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 166, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... are three kinds of damage caused by the policy. But the lecturer challenges the ...
^^
Line 5, column 412, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Additionally,
...s not possible if fire is not occurred. Additionally she mentions that plants become more di...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 164, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...en fleeing in the fire and small animals were unable to escape. The article also ...
^^
Line 9, column 273, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...habitats and disruption of food chains. However the lecturer refutes the claim and says...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 453, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...lants so their predator also increased. Thus it maintains the food chain. Final...
^^^^
Line 13, column 224, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[2]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: contrast,
...use of flames of large area of park. In contrast the lecturer rebuts the claim and says ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 413, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[8]
Message: The proper name in singular (yellowstone) must be used with a third-person verb: 'parks'.
Suggestion: parks
...otes that tourist can visit yellowstone park after fire and it did not affects the l...
^^^^
Line 13, column 444, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'affect'
Suggestion: affect
...lowstone park after fire and it did not affects the local economy and local business. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, third, thus, in contrast, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => 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: 1537.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 315.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87936507937 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.29564421532 2.5805825403 89% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507936507937 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 474.3 419.366225166 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.0777106783 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.4117647059 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5294117647 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.64705882353 7.06452816374 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.106777705501 0.272083759551 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0339021508671 0.0996497079465 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0395968024606 0.0662205650399 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0628101086132 0.162205337803 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.034278737172 0.0443174109184 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 13.3589403974 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.89 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.0 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.