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 reading passage argues that creating an international monetary fund could help protect forest areas against destruction. However, the speaker in the lecture refutes all the claims made in the article. He mentions that an international fund would rather be inadequate.
First of all, the lecturer asserts that modern agriculture in and of itself is highly detrimental to forests. Farmers use advanced technology like fertilizers and pesticides to enlarge the harvest yield and meet the enormous demand from an overall increasing population. As a result, there is always a huge runoff waste which causes water pollution and consequently leads to deforestation at a rate much worse than the logging industry. Hence the argument that dispersing funds to governments, land owners and farmers to protect agriculture is flawed.
Second, the lecturer indicates that paying forest owners and dwellers a stipend is not a solution as most of the forest owners are governments and not residents. Thus, payouts will not end up in the hands of forest dwellers who badly need it. In addition, there is no guarantee that if the governments received the money, it will be appropriately used to protect forests.
Lastly, the lecturer challenges the idea that spending money to encourage planting new forests will actually promote biodiversity. He further elaborates that people will use the fund to plant trees that could only be used commercially to make profit. Moreover, the speaker illustrates that by having people merely plant plantation forests, this will do nothing in the way of promoting the goal of biodiversity.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 438, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...e much worse than the logging industry. Hence the argument that dispersing funds to g...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 373, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... appropriately used to protect forests. Lastly, the lecturer challenges the idea...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, consequently, first, hence, however, if, lastly, moreover, second, so, thus, well, in addition, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1370.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 255.0 270.72406181 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37254901961 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99608801488 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93574924105 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.61568627451 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 418.5 419.366225166 100% => 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: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.9531832086 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.384615385 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6153846154 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.0769230769 7.06452816374 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.163285633338 0.272083759551 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0542699276005 0.0996497079465 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0399067650041 0.0662205650399 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0948114111847 0.162205337803 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0283708331904 0.0443174109184 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.22 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.