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 to the government and land owners will resist their intrusion by building 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. Consequently, this practice has detrimental effects on the environment by generating run off waste and water pollution. Therefore, 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. As a result, it will aid them to seek education and health services and prevent them from performing destructive forest practices to make their living. The lecturer rebuts this argument and says that the idea of paying stipend to the forest villagers is inadequate. He says that the funded money is dispersed to the owners of the forest, which is the government and not the residents. Thus, the complete fund is unlikely to reach in the hands of the forest dwellers for its given anticipated use.
Finally, the article posits that funding the government and the people can be helpful to prevent deforestation and establish forest areas with biodiversity. Conversely, 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 a scenario, this measure will not fulfil the goal of the forest protection fund.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, conversely, finally, first, however, may, second, so, therefore, thus, well, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1713.0 1373.03311258 125% => OK
No of words: 315.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.4380952381 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96711462727 2.5805825403 115% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520634920635 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 519.3 419.366225166 124% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => 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: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 26.2479526307 49.2860985944 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 100.764705882 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5294117647 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.29411764706 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.222354314531 0.272083759551 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0749975352695 0.0996497079465 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0535726552781 0.0662205650399 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148177331121 0.162205337803 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0189377444369 0.0443174109184 43% => 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: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.94 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.