TPO21
The reading passage deals with the issue of planting genetically modified trees. The professor's talk focuses on the same issue. However, she believes that planting those trees on a large scale will not benefit the trees as well as the farmers, which is exactly the opposite of what the reading states. And in the lecture, she makes three specific points to back up her point of view.
In the first place, even though the reading passage suggests that genetic modification can make trees more likely to live than other natural trees, the professor claims in the lecture that some species are resistant but modified trees won't survive. This is because their genes are unified by people so that they are not resistant to disasters, which means when modified trees expose to challenges, they will be completely wiped out. Apparently, the professor's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
In the second place, contrary to the statement in the reading that genetically modified trees will bring the farmers much more economic outcomes, the professor argues that those modified trees can't benefit farmers. Then she supports this point with the fact that according to the law, farmers should pay the company to buy seeds every time they plant them. In other words, those trees costs much more on their seeds than natural trees because natural trees can provide them seeds every season for free.
Further, the professor states that genetically modified trees will damage local trees while the arthor of the reading claims that genetically modified trees can solve the problem of overexploitation of trees. The professor shows that this claims is very weak by pointing out that modified trees are more aggresive than natural trees so that they will outcompete the natural ones for resources.
To sum up, the professor precisely discovers the flaws in the reading passage and successfully reveals that the main argument in the reading is incorrect.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-03-07 | amy2016 | 70 | view |
| 2022-10-18 | Kalyani_tekade_24 | 80 | view |
| 2022-03-02 | Shahab950 | 3 | view |
| 2021-08-17 | aaron_105 | 80 | view |
| 2021-05-29 | m.ramezanii1987@gmail.com | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 450, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...e completely wiped out. Apparently, the professors argument disproves its counterpart in t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 194, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...fessor argues that those modified trees cant benefit farmers. Then she supports this...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, first, however, if, second, so, then, well, while, as well as, in other words, to sum up, in the first place, in the second place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1644.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 319.0 270.72406181 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15360501567 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44538219211 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.501567398119 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 492.3 419.366225166 117% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.3207109327 49.2860985944 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.461538462 110.228320801 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5384615385 21.698381199 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.2307692308 7.06452816374 159% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.415956256728 0.272083759551 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.157069667878 0.0996497079465 158% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.128351100144 0.0662205650399 194% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.241995081236 0.162205337803 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.135882219662 0.0443174109184 307% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.