The reading states that the international forest protection fund is a good approach towards protecting the forests in developing countries and gives three reasons for support. However, the professor explains that the suggestions made in the article are flawed and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the article claims that International forest protection fund can be used to protect forest agriculture. The funds distributed will resist the intrusion of industries in the forest area. However, the professor refutes this by stating that agriculture is itself destructive for the forest ecosystem. He explains that the farmers use harmful pesticides and fertilizers to increase the harvest yield which has detrimental effects on the environment by generating run off waste and water pollution. Thus, promoting agriculture is not a good idea to save the forests from deforestation.
Second, the reading avers that the funds can be used to develop economies of the forest tribal communities which will prevent them from participating in converting the forest land into industries. The lecturer rebuts this argument and says that the idea of paying stipend to the forest villagers is inadequate. He says that the fund's money is dispersed to the owners of the forest who is the government and not the residents. Thus, the complete fund may not reach in the hands of the forest dwellers for its correct use.
Finally, the article posits that the funding the government and the people can be helpful to prevent deforestation and establish forest areas with biodiversity. Contrary to this, the professor explains that the government may not use these funds appropriately to protect forests and develop biodiversity. Instead, people might plant more trees of commercial purposes. In such scenario, this measure will not fulfil the goal of the forest protection fund.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 329, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'funds'' or 'fund's'?
Suggestion: funds'; fund's
...llagers is inadequate. He says that the funds money is dispersed to the owners of the...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, may, second, so, thus, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1583.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 294.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3843537415 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91973272533 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506802721088 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 476.1 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.4502437845 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.533333333 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.8 7.06452816374 54% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.233645645325 0.272083759551 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0833733052192 0.0996497079465 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.059253979046 0.0662205650399 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15598768876 0.162205337803 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0222188379078 0.0443174109184 50% => 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: 13.92 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.