The lecturer disputes that author's suggested solutions to protects forest from being demolished. He asserts that creating an international monitory funds is enough to protect forests.
First, according to the author farmers can use the funds to have more agricultural yields. However, the lecturer finds this idea debatable. He contends that agriculture may by itself be harmful to forests. In fact, The modern agricultural techniques are based on the use of extensive amounts of fertilizers and pesticides which are known to be harmful to the environment. These practices are indeed more devastating.
Second, the lecturer contradicts the fallacy of the passage that money would go to people which may help them in having a better education and healthcare. However, the lecturer refutes these claims. He asserts that owners of these lands are mostly governments. Governments may not be interested in protecting forests, thus money will not go to needy people who are willing to protect these forests.
Finally the author argues that the funds can preserve ecosystem diversity and protect threaten species from extinction. Again the lecturer disputes author's suggested claims. He asserts that providing money may not protect diversity because people would be interested in planting trees which are financially rewarding, according to the lecturer farmers may not have enough financial rewards in planting other types of crops.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 149, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'fund'?
Suggestion: fund
...that creating an international monitory funds is enough to protect forests. First,...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...re willing to protect these forests. Finally the author argues that the funds can pr...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ds in planting other types of crops.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, may, second, so, thus, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1219.0 1373.03311258 89% => OK
No of words: 219.0 270.72406181 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.56621004566 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.84690116678 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82418522493 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 117.0 145.348785872 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.534246575342 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 371.7 419.366225166 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 56.9591690492 49.2860985944 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.0714285714 110.228320801 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.6428571429 21.698381199 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.92857142857 7.06452816374 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0794836970047 0.272083759551 29% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0287147010654 0.0996497079465 29% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0302500647807 0.0662205650399 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0559234517251 0.162205337803 34% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0187253089102 0.0443174109184 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.73 12.2367328918 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 63.6247240618 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.