Word Count：299总耗时:27m35s 查看题目讨论
The author states about the three kinds of damages caused by the " let it burn" policy. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter- argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these damages do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions that the fires caused tremendous damage to the park's tree and other vegetation at Yellowstone Park. On the contrary, the professor cannot disagree more, reasoning that the fires brought the diversity on the species that are currently in that park. For instance, same seeds of different species require high temperatures to germinate and exist. So, fires have create that condition for them to thrive.
The second argument that the author gives is that fires have affected the park wildlife as well. Animals such as deer and elk were seen fleeing the fire. As a result, the food chains would make it impossible for the animals to survive. However, the lecturer cannot be more outraged, explaining that the fire has created new opportunities for ideal habitat for small animals. Therefore, the food chains have become stronger for different types of animals.
Lastly, on one hand, the reading passage points out that these fires had a negative impact for the local economy. Since the several thousand acres of the park engulfed in flames, the value of the park as a tourist attraction is compressed. Nevertheless, the professor declared that these fires are not happening every year, so, this does not affect the entire value of the park. Furthermore, it makes it more attractive because of the variety of new species that people would be able to see.
Although, the texts suggests three kinds of damages that appeared after the fire took place, in supporting the critics of the policy, the lecturer believes that none of them are persuasive.
.
Word Count：299总耗时:27m35s 查看题目讨论
The author states about the three kinds of damages caused by the " let it burn" policy. As opposed to, the lecturer who counter- argues that viewpoint trying to prove that these damages do not seem convincing.
First and foremost, the writer mentions that the fires caused tremendous damage to the park's tree and other vegetation at Yellowstone Park. On the contrary, the professor cannot disagree more, reasoning that the fires brought the diversity on the species that are currently in that park. For instance, same seeds of different species require high temperatures to germinate and exist. So, fires have create that condition for them to thrive.
The second argument that the author gives is that fires have affected the park wildlife as well. Animals such as deer and elk were seen fleeing the fire. As a result, the food chains would make it impossible for the animals to survive. However, the lecturer cannot be more outraged, explaining that the fire has created new opportunities for ideal habitat for small animals. Therefore, the food chains have become stronger for different types of animals.
Lastly, on one hand, the reading passage points out that these fires had a negative impact for the local economy. Since the several thousand acres of the park engulfed in flames, the value of the park as a tourist attraction is compressed. Nevertheless, the professor declared that these fires are not happening every year, so, this does not affect the entire value of the park. Furthermore, it makes it more attractive because of the variety of new species that people would be able to see.
Although, the texts suggests three kinds of damages that appeared after the fire took place, in supporting the critics of the policy, the lecturer believes that none of them are persuasive.
.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 400, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'created'.
Suggestion: created
... to germinate and exist. So, fires have create that condition for them to thrive. ...
^^^^^^
Line 11, column 191, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ieves that none of them are persuasive. .
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, well, for instance, such as, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1573.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 302.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20860927152 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9011121223 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.576158940397 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 471.6 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.0726366809 49.2860985944 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.3125 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.875 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.4375 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.09492273731 147% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.273157875375 0.272083759551 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0911133923277 0.0996497079465 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.18975250229 0.0662205650399 287% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.216499937352 0.162205337803 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.288960209188 0.0443174109184 652% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.