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 main idea of both the passage and the lecture is about decreasing forest pressure. In this line of thought, the reading states that governments and people can reduce pressure from the forest with internationally established forest protection fund for circulating it to the government, landowner or village aggression and protected forest areas. The lecturer, on the other hand, casts doubt on all of the three episodes of arguments mentioned in the passage, believing that none of these strategies are practical and lead to the real world. In the rest of the passage, a comparison between them is provided.
First of all, the reading and the listening materials talk about internationally established forest protection fund for circulating it to the government, landowner. The author explains that 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. On the contrary, the lecturer believes that agriculture is itself a destructive manner for the forest because, under increasing population, the farmers increase pressure inland for harvesting more yield with practicing technologies. Using technologies are the worst practicing because it creates runoff waste and water pollution. Therefore, it is not a good idea.
Second, both the text and the talk discuss develop the economies of villages and tribal communities located in forest areas with protection fund and Providing living stipends and other financial aid to forest residents. The author points out that 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. However, the lecturer notes that if it means that money goes to the forest owners and government have not any access to money. Even if the government can have access to money, there is no guarantee to employ properly from that. This was another place where experience contradicted the theory.
Eventually, protected forest areas with protection fund which are discussed by both the passage and the lecture. The author mentions that it is the best way to maintain valuable forest biodiversity and protect species from exploitation, endangerment, and extinction. The lecturer rebuts this argument. The lecturer states that this idea has a commercial purpose. If people merely plant plantation forests, this will do nothing in the way of promoting the goal of forest biodiversity. This opinion directly contradicts the passage presented and making it infeasible.
Sum up, although the passage provides some solution to protect the forest from the deforestation, the lecture opposes about the effectiveness and possibility of those reasons.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 398, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...urer, on the other hand, casts doubt on all of the three episodes of arguments mentioned i...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 303, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ion. The lecturer rebuts this argument. The lecturer states that this idea has a co...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, so, therefore, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 7.30242825607 274% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 30.3222958057 185% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 5.01324503311 339% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2436.0 1373.03311258 177% => OK
No of words: 441.0 270.72406181 163% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.52380952381 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58257569496 4.04702891845 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04766460121 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 145.348785872 160% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528344671202 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 754.2 419.366225166 180% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.23620309051 170% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 13.0662251656 161% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.9484747199 49.2860985944 142% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.0 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 21.698381199 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.57142857143 7.06452816374 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.165850455333 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0423189713478 0.0996497079465 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0419785778289 0.0662205650399 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0908319950145 0.162205337803 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0439423764505 0.0443174109184 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 53.8541721854 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.74 12.2367328918 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.37 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 63.6247240618 206% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.