The article states that many people called for replacing “let it burn policy” that caused damage to yellowstone forests, and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor states that Yellowstone fires are part of ecological circles and these fires are not destructive, but creative process. And she refutes each of the author’s reasons.
First, the reading claims that Yellowstone fires caused tremendous damage to the park’s trees and other vegetation. The professor disagree with point by saying that the scorched land has adopted new plant species which become so diverse. She explains that increasing in species diversity brought opportunities to other species, for example, small plants that need an open, shade land to grow. Also, plants have developed seeds that resistant to highly heat exposure.
Second, the article posits that the park wildlife was affected too, such as deer and elk were seen fleeing the fire, in addition to others were unable to escape. The professor, on the other hand, emphasizes that the fire had created an opportunity to new animals species to inhabit the scorched land, as well as, the new plant species. For instance, small plants are ideal for rabbits and hares to feed on, Consequently, predators that feed on rabbits, or hares also have good chance the grow up in this land. And ultimately, the professor says, certain new food chains have strongly survive chance.
Third, the reading avers that the fires compromised the value of the park as a tourist attraction. Conversely, the professor opposes this point by stating that this could be true, if fires would have happened every year. But, since the 1988, there was no fire incident had happened in yellowstone park. So, this point is totally unfair and people continue to visit the park , after this incident, at the normal level.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 165, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... professor disagree with point by saying that the scorched land has adopted new p...
^^
Line 5, column 256, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'animals'' or 'animal's'?
Suggestion: animals'; animal's
... fire had created an opportunity to new animals species to inhabit the scorched land, a...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 485, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...rabbits, or hares also have good chance the grow up in this land. And ultimately, the pr...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 585, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'survived'.
Suggestion: survived
..., certain new food chains have strongly survive chance. Third, the reading avers tha...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 190, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had happened'?
Suggestion: had happened
...ating that this could be true, if fires would have happened every year. But, since the 1988, there ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 374, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ir and people continue to visit the park , after this incident, at the normal leve...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, conversely, first, however, if, second, so, third, well, for example, for instance, in addition, such as, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1569.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2474916388 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63069699256 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 145.348785872 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.615384615385 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 468.0 419.366225166 112% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.7274435922 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.6 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9333333333 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.6666666667 7.06452816374 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.338980117869 0.272083759551 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113614879694 0.0996497079465 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0922443420722 0.0662205650399 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.194065276759 0.162205337803 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0226371771674 0.0443174109184 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.