In 1995 a microscopic fungus called Phytophthora ramorum, or P. ramorum, was first detected in the forests of the western United States. P. ramorum infects trees and causes particularly serious damage in oak trees: in many infected oaks, leaves wither rapidly, large cracks appear in the bark, and the trees die. A spread of P. ramorum represents a serious threat to the forests in the western states. Several methods of protecting the forests have been proposed.
First, stopping P. ramorum spores from spreading would surely be an effective method. Spores are small particles through which all fungi, including P. ramorum, reproduce. Researchers have discovered that many P. ramorum spores can be found along hiking or biking trails, suggesting human-assisted spread by way of shoes and bicycle tires. A few measures to prevent such human-assisted spread—like encouraging hikers to wash their shoes and installing new bike scrubbers on bicycle trails—would be an effective and low-cost way to stop the spread of P. ramorum.
The reading and the lecture are both about the methods to protect the trees from P. ramorum. While the author of the article argues that there are three ways to protect them, the lecturer disputes the claims presented in the article. His position is that these methods are impractical and ineffective.
According to the reading, stopping spreading P. ramorum spores is a practical method. The article mentions that preventing human-assisted spread can stop the spread of P. ramorum. This argument is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that human is not the only assistance to spread them. When there is raining, the spores can get involved into the water flow and travel a huge distance, which is very hard to control.
Secondly, the author suggests fungicidal chemicals can be brought to usage. In the article notes that the chemicals can strengthen the natural defenses of trees against the fungus. The lecturer, however, asserts that this method is useful for trees in the city. But it is impractical and expensive to apply these chemicals to the trees in a forest because of the huge amount.
Finally, the author puts forth the idea that clear-cutting is also an effective way. The author contends that clearing diseased trees can prevent from infecting surrounding oaks trees. In contrast, the lecturer's stance is that this way is dangerous because it can destroy the forest. Cutting trees can do harm to the ecological system and cause irreversible damage.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-25 | MA KUNG TING | 80 | view |
| 2023-08-10 | nusybah | 73 | view |
| 2023-07-12 | Zmx_6 | 83 | view |
| 2023-07-12 | Zmx_6 | 70 | view |
| 2023-01-17 | nikki07hung | 68 | view |
- Many countries require cigarette smokers to pay particularly high taxes on their purchases of cigarettes similar taxes are being considered for unhealthy foods The policy of imposing high taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy products has a number of so 78
- Glass is a favored building material for modern architecture yet it is also very dangerous for wild birds Because they often cannot distinguish between glass and open air millions of birds are harmed every year when they try to fly through glass windows T 75
- Some parents offer their school age children money for each high grade mark they get in school Do you think this is a good idea Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 66
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Because people are busy doing so many different things they do very few things well Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 60
- Some parents offer their school age children money for each high grade mark they get in school Do you think this is a good idea Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 203, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lecturers'' or 'lecturer's'?
Suggestion: lecturers'; lecturer's
...urrounding oaks trees. In contrast, the lecturers stance is that this way is dangerous be...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, second, secondly, so, then, while, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1236.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 242.0 270.72406181 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10743801653 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94415379849 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6515276734 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.557851239669 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 370.8 419.366225166 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.4364947775 49.2860985944 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 72.7058823529 110.228320801 66% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.2352941176 21.698381199 66% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.41176470588 7.06452816374 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
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: 0.152888402315 0.272083759551 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0393196569113 0.0996497079465 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0497300000797 0.0662205650399 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0861426471564 0.162205337803 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0207860160078 0.0443174109184 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.8 13.3589403974 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.73 53.8541721854 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 11.0289183223 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.77 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.0 10.7273730684 47% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.