In the United States, it had been common practice since the late 1980s 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 arid spread over a huge area, encompassing more than 800,000 acres. Because of the large sale of the damage, many people called for replaying 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 bum" 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 chairs would make it impossible for the animals that surmised 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 derided to stay away. Of course, local businesses that depended on park visitors suffered as a result.
Both the reading and the lecture discusses whether to adopt the call to cancel the “let it burn” policy due to the massive fire outbreak in Yellowstone national park in the summer of 1988. While the reading supports the idea of replaying the let it burn policy by providing three significant effects of the policy on Yellowstone Park, however, the professor rejected each of the three evidences claiming that the fire can also be creative and it is a good one.
First of all, the passage states that one of the adverse effects of the policy is the destruction of the park’s tree and other vegetation. Around one-third of the entire Yellowstone acre got burnt and trees become black due to flame. On the other hand, the professor objects that the fire create more opportunity for some smaller plant as the space created would be an opportunity for these plants to grow without competition from the destroyed vegetation. So, the effect of the policy is a good one for the smaller plant.
Second of all, the author claims that the fire made the wildlife such as deer and elk in the park to flee for safety and also destroyed the habitats food chair which would inhibit them from coming back to the park. In contrast, the lecturer refutes this by stating that rather than being a negative impact, it created a new opportunity for both small animals and predator. The fire created a new habitat for the small animals like rabbit and hare to grow and explore which the predator would depend on for food.
Lastly, the reading claims that as a result of the policy, the part tourist attraction is in danger which would affect the local economy. Contrarily, the lecture states that the fire was supported by other unusual circumstances such as rainfall made the fire massive. As a result of that, the fire only affected the tourist attraction in 1988 alone and the years after the fire outbreak, tourist visited the park.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 141, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'habitats'' or 'habitat's'?
Suggestion: habitats'; habitat's
... flee for safety and also destroyed the habitats food chair which would inhibit them fro...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, lastly, second, so, third, while, in contrast, such as, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1589.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 335.0 270.72406181 124% => OK
Chars per words: 4.74328358209 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27820116611 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42353133283 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49552238806 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 490.5 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 54.8275072893 49.2860985944 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.416666667 110.228320801 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.9166666667 21.698381199 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.5 7.06452816374 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.158235895267 0.272083759551 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0622935100144 0.0996497079465 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0454708504436 0.0662205650399 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100871114592 0.162205337803 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0445310209295 0.0443174109184 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 53.8541721854 98% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 11.0289183223 114% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.51 12.2367328918 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 10.7273730684 163% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.