Because of climate change, more and more land that was once used to grow crops or provide food for animals is turning to dry, unusable desert land. There are many proposals about how to stop this process, known as desertification. A number of proposals involve growing trees, because trees can help protect soil and provide many other benefits to fight against desertification. Some scientists have proposed that the best way to grow trees in dry areas in danger of desertification is by using a box-shaped device surrounding the young tree. The device collects water that condenses from vapor in the atmosphere and helps the tree to grow. However, other scientists believe that this device will not be successful in fighting against desertification for the following reasons.
First, at a cost of 25 U S. dollars each, the device would make growing trees a prohibitively expensive process. Meaningful efforts to fight desertification involve growing millions of trees. Some countries most affected by desertification cannot afford to buy devices for millions of trees
Second, plans for fighting desertification involve asking local people to install and maintain the devices. People living in some of the areas most affected by desertification work long days in harsh conditions: sometimes barely managing to provide food for their families. It would be difficult to motivate these people to look after trees that cannot serve as a source of food for them.
Third, the device's ability to collect and conserve water is limited. Each one provides only enough water to keep a small tree alive. Trees that have outgrown the device have to deal with unforgiving environmental conditions on their own. In some places where the devices are being tried, six months can pass without a drop of rain. Once the trees become too big for the device, they may not be able to survive in such a harsh environment.
The major topic discussed by both the reading and the lecture is analyzing the feasibility of using box-shaped devices to combat desertification. The passage presents the view that, these devices will not be useful to fight desertification and provides three major reasoning for its claim. However, the orator of the lecture is quick to point out that there are some serious flaws with the writer's claims. In fact, the professor believes these devices are worthy of their use, and addresses, in detail, the trouble with each point made in the reading text.
First of all, the passage posits that the use of such devices is not economically feasible and when added with the cost of equipping such devices into millions of trees, the entire process becomes a huge economic burden which cannot be beard by many countries. The lecture, however, refutes this claim by illustrating the possible re-use of the device once the younger tress get bigger, which will prove its economic efficacy. She goes on to say that when the cost of device is divided by the number of tress it can be re-used upon, then it will infact prove to be much cheaper.
Secondly, the passage argues that local people living in desertified areas will not be properly motivated in order to install and maintain the devices, primarily because of their poor and arduous living conditions. Again, the speaker counters this stance, by illustrating the secondary rewards of the devices, which may in fact provide incentives for its use. After installation, the device will provide tangential rewards like water collection for growing vegetables and firewood from the branches of larger trees. So, the locals will consent to the use of the equipment.
Finally, the passage warns that once the trees outgrow the small devices, it will not be able to withstand the harsh desert conditions on their own. Not surprisingly, the lecture takes issue with this claim by contending that with the help of the devices, tress will be able to grow long roots capable of reaching the deep moist water sources. She goes on to provide evidence from Sahara desert, where 90% of the trees are still alive even when the devices where removed two years ago.
To sum up, both the writer and the orator hold conflicting views about the box-shaped devices. It's clear that they will have trouble finding common ground on the issue.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-30 | naziii | 80 | view |
| 2019-12-27 | Amirreza97 | 73 | view |
| 2019-11-30 | shrjhn1234 | 73 | view |
| 2019-11-21 | Seema Modak | 3 | view |
| 2019-10-26 | ghazalsaed1995 | 3 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? When people succeed, it is entirely because of hard work. Luck has nothing to do with their success. Use specific reasons and examples to explain your position. 70
- Some people suggest that it is wrong to give money to beggars asking for money on the street, while others think that it is the right thing to do. Which point of view do you think is correct, and why? 73
- Summarize the points in the lecture being sure to explain how they address the specific ideas about solar energy described in the reading passage 76
- Reading notes Communal online encyclopedias represent one of the latest resources to be found on the Internet. They are in many respects like traditional printed encyclopedias collections of articles on various subjects. What is specific to these onlin 80
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities. "Recently, we signed a contract with the Fly-Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our war 69
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 34, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
.... Secondly, the passage argues that local people living in desertified areas...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, in fact, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 30.3222958057 191% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1989.0 1373.03311258 145% => OK
No of words: 399.0 270.72406181 147% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98496240602 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46933824581 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48793799983 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 145.348785872 148% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538847117794 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 608.4 419.366225166 145% => 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: 14.0 8.23620309051 170% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.5221840373 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.3125 110.228320801 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9375 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.3125 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.106761708789 0.272083759551 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0379689499503 0.0996497079465 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0224883869927 0.0662205650399 34% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0582126822835 0.162205337803 36% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0229495618943 0.0443174109184 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.9 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 63.6247240618 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.