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.
Both the lecture and the article agree that as civilization developed, deforestation is a serious topic internationally, and take that as their starting point. The article proposes a solution saying that raising an international fund to protect forest will be helpful, while the lecture, however, strongly disagree this point raised by the article with the following reasons.
First, the lecture refutes the article by suggesting that providing funds for farmers to stop developing agriculture and logging is impractical because the global population, which needs a tremendous amount of food and wood, is still growing instead of slowing down. In other words, the lecture is indicating that those development on agriculture and logging is irreplicable by other solutions for human if we still consume the same way as we used to, which means that it’s simply impossible to stop companies to develop forest by just providing international fund.
Secondly, the lecture opposes the point hold by the article about providing stipends to forest dwellers can stop deforestation and increase the plant diversity by stating the fact that those funds are likely to go to forest owners, which in most cases are governments rather than individual citizens. Besides, based on the previous point, the lecture adds on and clarifies that there’s no guaranty that people who received the fund will really grow plants that are environmentally friendly instead of growing commercial crops that they can make profit out of.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 315, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this development' or 'those developments'?
Suggestion: this development; those developments
...r words, the lecture is indicating that those development on agriculture and logging is irreplica...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, first, however, if, really, second, secondly, so, still, well, while, in most cases, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1276.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 237.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38396624473 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92362132708 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89056945326 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.607594936709 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 390.6 419.366225166 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 6.0 13.0662251656 46% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 39.0 21.2450331126 184% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 49.7694685525 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 212.666666667 110.228320801 193% => OK
Words per sentence: 39.5 21.698381199 182% => OK
Discourse Markers: 18.0 7.06452816374 255% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.09492273731 73% => 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 : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.15991717618 0.272083759551 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0750815734015 0.0996497079465 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0490171499146 0.0662205650399 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101080353543 0.162205337803 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0343346171529 0.0443174109184 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 23.7 13.3589403974 177% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.89 53.8541721854 59% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 5.55761589404 234% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.5 11.0289183223 168% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.52 12.2367328918 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.83 8.42419426049 117% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 10.7273730684 186% => OK
gunning_fog: 17.6 10.498013245 168% => OK
text_standard: 24.0 11.2008830022 214% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
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: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.