The article claims that "let it burn" policy is very destructive and provides three claims of supports, based on conflagration that occurred in Yellowstone forest. The professor, however, in lecture claims the "let it burn" policy is favorable to environment and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading states that fire on yellow stone prompts huge damage on trees and vegetation of the park. The professor refutes this point by saying that fire aids in revival of damaged plants along with occurrence of new vegetation. She asserts that various small aerial plants got a chance full full development and spreading due to large area provided to them due to destruction by fire. Also she mentioned that plant seeds, which needed heat for bursting, germinated when there was fire.
Second, the article posits that fire also caused deterioration of wild animals. However, the professor confutes this point. According to the professor, due to development of variety of plants after inferno, it attracted new animals such as rabbits and dear. Furthermore, it attracted other predator, providing a successful ecosystem.
Third, the article maintains that conflagration decreased the tourist arrival. The professor, counter this point by explaining that it have only it's effect in 1880. Further, we came to know that as such type of big fire takes place occasionally, such type of damage is rear- haven't taken place after it. Thus, the number of the tourist increased after the year 1880.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 279, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...apos; policy is favorable to environment and refutes each of the authors reasons....
^^
Line 3, column 296, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: full
...arious small aerial plants got a chance full full development and spreading due to large ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 395, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...ded to them due to destruction by fire. Also she mentioned that plant seeds, which n...
^^^^
Line 7, column 276, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...asionally, such type of damage is rear- havent taken place after it. Thus, the number ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, however, second, so, third, thus, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1287.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 241.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34024896266 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94007293032 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.771871194 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.593360995851 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 387.0 419.366225166 92% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.4330013736 49.2860985944 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.9285714286 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2142857143 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.78571428571 7.06452816374 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.226795865952 0.272083759551 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0695768491907 0.0996497079465 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0529190137479 0.0662205650399 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117883425012 0.162205337803 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0630203204277 0.0443174109184 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.