TPO20
The author enumerates several damages caused by the huge forest fire in Yellowstone to indicate that the policy of 'let it burn' is harmful. The lecturer, however, refutes the proposed claim and offers some counterclaims to illustrate the benefits of the event.
First, according to the reading, disappearance of numerous plants and trees can be regarded as one of the most significant damages. On the contrary, the professor rejects the arguments and mentions the point that it helped a vast numbers of new plants grow there. In other words, the diversity of plans augmented noticeably since many plants which were not able to thrive before the happening start growing. As a matter of fact, they had the opportunity to flourish. For instance, some seeds of specific plants could grow under the special circumstance, high level of heat.
Second, the extinction of a great amount of animals, especially smaller species, is the other consequence of the terrible forest fire. During the fire, many big animals like deer were escaping, but smaller ones could not flee. Conversely, the speaker refutes the statements. He states that that event was even advantageous. Not only did it recovered those animals, but it also contributed to forming new species. For example, animals like hares and rabbit appeared and the corresponding predators were seen. As a result, a food chain formed.
Finally, based on the author's claim, the fire had a great impact on the local business and tourism, on the grounds that the forest could not attract the visitors' attention anymore. In the contrast, the professor concedes the general perspective toward the effect of fire. But he argues that it is correct as long as it happens every year. In addition, it was a specific occurrence since some happenings coincided with each other such as stiff wind, low rainfall, and massive dryness. Therefore, it cannot be consider a devastating event.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 154, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'visitors'' or 'visitor's'?
Suggestion: visitors'; visitor's
...s that the forest could not attract the visitors attention anymore. In the contrast, the...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 539, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cannot be consider a devastating event.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, finally, first, however, if, second, so, therefore, for example, for instance, in addition, such as, as a matter of fact, as a result, in other words, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1614.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 314.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14012738854 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7491363774 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 145.348785872 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59872611465 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 501.3 419.366225166 120% => 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: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.153445294 49.2860985944 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.9473684211 110.228320801 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.5263157895 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.94736842105 7.06452816374 141% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.286389040042 0.272083759551 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0690972030045 0.0996497079465 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0747703039265 0.0662205650399 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158329085198 0.162205337803 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0508392560692 0.0443174109184 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.11 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 63.6247240618 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.