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 concentrates on forest protection and lists three means that he thinks practical. However, the speaker retorts all the three ideas one by one. First, the writer reckons that international fund can be raised to protect mere agricultural use of the forest. But the lecturer points out that agricultural damage is a strong destructive force. In order to get harvest, farmers will use pesticide and fertile to help crops grow better. This will produce run-off waste and water pollution which was detrimental to forest condition. Therefore, the first approach of the passage is proved unconvincing. Second, the passage says government should help to develop the economics of nearby villages and tribal communities so they will not make money through damaging the forest. Nevertheless, the speaker regards this as an inadequate solution. He emphasizes that money given to landowners – the government will not be used for forest developers. It will not be properly used so the writer’s second idea is rebutted. Third, the author indicates that we should be cautious about the loss of biodiversity caused by forest destruction. Therefore, he argues that new trees should be planted to maintain biodiversity. But the speaker says that if people are encouraged to plant new trees, they will first choose certain kinds of trees which can bring them commercial benefits. Recovering forest biodiversity needs various kinds of trees. So merely planting money-making trees in fact will harm biodiversity. Thus reliably retorted the last argument in the essay.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1508, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...g trees in fact will harm biodiversity. Thus reliably retorted the last argument in ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, third, thus, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1318.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 246.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35772357724 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96035189615 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91235127343 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.626016260163 0.540411800872 116% => OK
syllable_count: 396.9 419.366225166 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.084447396 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 77.5294117647 110.228320801 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.4705882353 21.698381199 67% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.82352941176 7.06452816374 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 1.0 4.09492273731 24% => More paragraphs wanted.
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: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.161703031311 0.272083759551 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.047343586837 0.0996497079465 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0419561063016 0.0662205650399 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161703031311 0.162205337803 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 53.8541721854 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 11.0289183223 80% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.22 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted. The correct pattern:
para 1: introduction
para 2: doubt 1
para 3: doubt 2
para 4: doubt 3
Less contents wanted from the reading passages(25%), more content wanted from the lecture (75%).
Don't need a conclusion paragraph.
Read sample essays from ETS:
http://www.testbig.com/users/toeflwritingmaster
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.