Native to Europe and Asia, cheatgrass is an invasive species of grass that is causing problems in North American fields. The plant quickly dominates fields that it has invaded and drives out other plants. This can cause, among other problems, severe damage to animal habitats and to scenic areas. Several solutions to the cheatgrass problem have been proposed by ecologists.
One option is to encourage animals such as cattle to feed on cheatgrass. Cattle and other livestock are known as grazers because they graze, or eat. small portions of grass or other plants throughout the day. If grazers were released in fields where cheatgrass is prevalent, the cheatgrass would be reduced That would create room for native species to reestablish themselves and flourish. This plan is appealing because cheatgrass is most prevalent in areas of North America where cattle and other livestock are raised.
Another option is to burn the cheatgrass off the fields with controlled fires. This plan has the advantage of eliminating vast amounts of cheatgrass in a short time Cheatgrass, it turns out? is a highly flammable plant: it burns much more easily than the native plant species that have been crowded out. Strategically set fires could bum away the cheatgrass where it has come to dominate, creating space so the newly cleared fields could be reseeded with native grasses and other plants.
Still another option is to introduce a fungal parasite that specifically attacks cheatgrass. In Europe and Asia, where cheatgrass is a native species, there is a species of fungus that has the ability to prevent cheatgrass from reproducing. Introducing this fungus in North American fields where cheatgrass has proliferated could slow the spread of cheatgrass, making it possible for native species to better compete against cheatgrass.
In this set of materials, the reading and listening both discuss the chaeatgrass, the invasive grass in North American fields. The article strongly postulates that due to the hazardous effects of grass on animal and nature, it should be eradicated, and endorse three solutions to get rid f grass. However, the lecturer mentions that methods used in the reading are dubious and impractical and would not be successful, and gainsay them.
First and foremost, the reading begins by asserting that it grazers like cattle are placed on the cheatgrass fields, they would feed on the grass and reduce the proliferation of cheatgrass by providing more room for native vegetation to grow. On the other hand, the lecturer rebuts this point by insisting that grazing animals do not prefer to graze on cheatgrass especially when they have other feed available. He exemplifies that if cattle are left on fields with cheatgrass, the cattle will definitely eat the cheatgrass but only after feeding on native grass and destroying the native vegetation first. Consequently, this solution would have opposite effect, because the field will be lefty with fewer native plants and plentiful cheatgrass.
Furthermore, the lecturer posits that when cheatgrass grows, it germinates innumerable number of seeds and many of them are pushed down to the earth. Therefore, when fire is ignited in cheatgrass field, they would just burn the cheatgrass located on surface, the seeds that below remain protected and they will grow again even after the fire is extinguished. Consequently, the cheatgrass growth will be outgrown again. these points clearly refute the writer's implication that a controlled fire could reduce the extensive growth of cheat fire as grass is highly combustible.
Ultimately, the writer wraps up its arguments by declaring that parasitic fungus that shares same habitat with cheatgrass is proven to kill the cheatgrass. Therefore if that parasite is grown in North America, the growth would be reduced. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes an issue with that by contending that parasitic fungus is known to live with cheatgrass for thousands of years. So cheatgrass has developed the resistance against them. Moreover, they will only kill the weak and sick grass not the healthier and stronger grass. As a result, this solution is ineffective too.
- it is better to work as a team than individually for success agree disagee 88
- Children can learn by reading books as much as watching movies agree disagree 90
- some people prefer to take knowledge of one subject other prefer to take knowledge of many different subjects which would you prefer 80
- When classmates or colleagues communicate about a project in person instead of by e mail they will produce better work for the project Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Teachers were more appreciated and valued by society in the past than they are nowadays Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 420, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: These
...eatgrass growth will be outgrown again. these points clearly refute the writers impli...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 452, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
... again. these points clearly refute the writers implication that a controlled fire coul...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 156, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...grass is proven to kill the cheatgrass. Therefore if that parasite is grown in North Amer...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 45.0 30.3222958057 148% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1972.0 1373.03311258 144% => OK
No of words: 374.0 270.72406181 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27272727273 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3976220399 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79483781626 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 145.348785872 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.53743315508 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 582.3 419.366225166 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.3390279543 49.2860985944 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.0 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.29411764706 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.179469898423 0.272083759551 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0575548146594 0.0996497079465 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0427017942136 0.0662205650399 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104066665634 0.162205337803 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0501840531635 0.0443174109184 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 63.6247240618 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.