The world’s forests are facing increasing pressure which, if left unchecked, will threaten the health of many industries, economies, nations, and lives. The development of an international fund to help developing countries implement useful conservation techniques in forest protection is the best way to protect the world’s forests and hopefully reverse negative trends that imperil our forests. Using the internationally established forest protection fund to protect forest agriculture is perhaps the most important initiative. Dispersing these funds to governments, land owners, and farmers will allow them to resist intrusions by the logging industry, oil companies, and property developers who are after their land. This is a very specific initiative that will help agricultural areas from being developed into environmentally damaging industries and ensure that agricultural farm use is uninterrupted. A second use of this protection fund could be used to develop the economies of villages and tribal communities located in forest areas. By parceling out funds to provide villagers and tribal residents of forests with a stipend will help these people continue their way of life and resist pressure to convert their forest land to the above mentioned industries. Providing living stipends and other financial aid to forest residents will help people afford education, health services, and nutritional aid so that they are less tempted to resort to destructive or exploitative forest practices to make a living. Much of the global concern with deforestation focuses on the alarming loss of biodiversity. Humans use thousands of species of plants and animals on a daily basis for food, shelter, clothing and medicinal needs. Deforestation threatens species that humans rely on for these essential services. Using the international fund to help governments and people establish protected forest areas is the best way to maintain valuable forest biodiversity and protect species from exploitation, endangerment and extinction.
The passage explains about support forest conservation, which is suggested to develop an international fund to help developing countries implement conservation techniques in forest protection. He listed three facts supporting this idea. However, the speaker holds a contradictory view that the idea itself is flawed and not all these three ways are reliable.
First, the writer proposes to disperse these funds to governments or land owners to protect forest agriculture. However, the professor points out that agricultural practices in itself are destructive for forests. By involving governments they will encourage industrialized agricultural practices, that will have more harm on forests than logging or property development. For example, practices like fertilization and pesticide that will cause water pollution will harm the forest. The writer’s first argument is refuted.
Second, the passage suggests paying stipend to villagers to support their life and so avoid harming forest to support their life. To render this disproof, the lecturer reveals that this money will also go to forest owners, which are the governments and not the villagers, and it is not really clear if they really will give this money to villagers or properly used. The second idea in the passage is also retorted.
Third, the essay suggests using these funds to jeep variety in forests by planting trees. Nevertheless, the speaker rebuts this idea. He thinks this will not work because people will use this money to plant trees with commercial uses and this will not help variety. This overturns the writer’s concept.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 117, Rule ID: ADVISE_VBG[5]
Message: The verb 'help' is used with infinitive: 'to develop' or 'develop'.
Suggestion: to develop; develop
...o develop an international fund to help developing countries implement conservation techni...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, nevertheless, really, second, so, third, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1365.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 249.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.48192771084 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.97237131171 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89425912093 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.582329317269 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 407.7 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 56.4189093597 49.2860985944 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.0 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.6 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.53333333333 7.06452816374 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205790334969 0.272083759551 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0640716560415 0.0996497079465 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0899290629157 0.0662205650399 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127986275323 0.162205337803 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0634704938437 0.0443174109184 143% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.