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 and the lecture are both about the effects of a huge natural forest fire in 1988. The author believes that the policies taken to withstand the damage was not enough and the fire was destructive. However, the professor doubts the claim made by the author and states that there was no problem with the "let it burn" policy.
First, the reading claims that the level of destruction was to a point that its vegetation was almost eliminated. The professor states that forest fires are natural and they could be creative as well as being destructive. She mentions that a great opportunity arose for new plants to colonize in the scorched areas resulting in an increase in plant diversity. She emphasizes this fact by mentioning new seeds that needed open, unshaded areas to grow or seeds that did not germinate until they were exposed to a high level of heat.
Second, the reading posits that the negative effect of this fire was not limited to plants, it affected the wildlife, too. According to the professor the same things happened to the plants happened to the animals. Animals did recover, and there was a new opportunity. Small plants that had grown made an ideal habitat for animals such as rabbits. This new group of animals as well, were the food of other bigger animals. Thus a brand new strong food chain was established.
Finally, the author says that the fire degrades the tourism. The lecturer opposes this claim by explaining that, the particular fire happened in 1988 was an unusual event. It was a result of a year with little rain and it did not happen to that scale. After the incident tourists came back the following years to enjoy the place.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 421, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... were the food of other bigger animals. Thus a brand new strong food chain was estab...
^^^^
Line 4, column 252, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “After” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...in and it did not happen to that scale. After the incident tourists came back the fol...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 330, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the following years to enjoy the place.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, second, so, thus, well, as to, such as, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1394.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 292.0 270.72406181 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.77397260274 5.08290768461 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13376432452 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44336295263 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.527397260274 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 430.2 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.588837764 49.2860985944 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.0 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1764705882 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.41176470588 7.06452816374 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => 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: 0.097442779667 0.272083759551 36% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0320197868322 0.0996497079465 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0504002076685 0.0662205650399 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0693930632164 0.162205337803 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0742846093028 0.0443174109184 168% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.6 13.3589403974 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.09 12.2367328918 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.