In the United States, it had been common practice since the late 1960s not to suppress natural forest fires. The "let it burn" policy assumed that forest fire would burn themselves out quickly, without causing much damage. However, in the summer of 1988, forest fires in Yellowstone, the most famous national park in the country, burned for more than two months and spread over a huge area, encompassing more than 800,000 acres. Because of the large scale of the damage, many people called for replacing the "let it burn" policy with a policy of extinguishing forest fires as soon as they appeared. Three kinds of damage caused by the "let it burn" policy were emphasized by critics of the policy.
First, Yellowstone fires caused tremendous damage to the park's trees and other vegetation. When the fires finally died out, nearly one third of Yellowstone's land had been scorched. Trees were charred and blackened from flames and smoke. Smaller plants were entirely incinerated. What had been a national treasure now seemed like a devastated wasteland.
Second, the park wildlife was affected as well. Large animals like deer and elk were seen fleeing the fire. Many smaller species were probably unable to escape. There was also concern that the destruction of habitats and the disruption of food chains would make it impossible for the animals that survived the fire to return.
Third, the fires compromised the value of the park as a tourist attraction, which in turn had negative consequences for the local economy. With several thousand acres of the park engulfed in flames, the tourist season was cut short, and a large number of visitors decided to stay away. Of course, local businesses that depended on park visitors suffered as a result.
The reading passage and the lecture offer opposing views regarding the damage caused by the ''let it burn'' policy. While the author of the article presents three possible damages to identify the fires as destructive, the professor in the lecture thinks that those fires were creative and had some positive impact.
To begin with, the author of the article argues that trees and vegetation within the park suffered a terrible fate due to Yellowstone fires. In the article, it is stated that destruction of those plants, including the small ones, was responsible for the lose of a potential national treasure. However, the lecture claims that scorched land provided opportunities to the new plants to grow in the park, and thereby increased the diversity of the park's plant species. He adds that some plan seeds cannot grow unless they are exposed to high temperature; the fire of the Yellowstone land provided opportunities to those seeds to germinate.
Secondly, the writer suggests that the wildlife of the park got affected by the fires as they lost their habitats and food chains. But the professor claims that those existing animals not only recovered but new animal species were attracted to the park as there were new plant species which had grown in the scorched land. Small plants created an ideal habitat for some small animals such as: rabbits, and the food chains became stronger since predators of those small animals were also introduced within the park.
Finally, the professor in the lecture argues against the idea of the passage that tourism got affected by the fires. He mentions that those fires are not a regular occurrence: their introduction involves the combination of some factors. Yellowstone park never experienced a fire of that extent after 1988, and the tourism in that area grew faster after that year.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 250, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ing the small ones, was responsible for the lose of a potential national treasure. Howev...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 82, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ues against the idea of the passage that tourism got affected by the fires. He me...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, while, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1530.0 1373.03311258 111% => OK
No of words: 303.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0495049505 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52951727955 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518151815182 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 477.0 419.366225166 114% => 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
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.5186645987 49.2860985944 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.5 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.25 21.698381199 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.91666666667 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => 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: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0962186045324 0.272083759551 35% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0394522524959 0.0996497079465 40% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0405301857746 0.0662205650399 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0705128315704 0.162205337803 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0542629715398 0.0443174109184 122% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.