undoubtedly, desertification has always been a controversial topic among people and governments. More specifically the writer puts forth on the idea that box-shaped devices will not be successful in fighting against desertification. However, the professor points out that there are some serious flaws in the writer's claims. To be exact, the professor believes that these devices can help trees to grow in such climate. She more or less addresses the problem with each point made in the reading.
First of all, the writer claims that to get meaningful results in fighting desertification, countries should grow millions of trees, and providing millions of these devices will cost so much that lots of countries can't afford it. But the professor refutes with this point and says that countries can reuse each device up to 20 times or even more, when a tree grows enough in a device, the device can get removed and get installed on another young tree.
Secondly, the reading states that since local people are affected by desertification work long days in harsh conditions, and barely can manage to provide food for their families, they would not help in installing and maintaining devices. They have not proper motivation. The professor, not surprisingly though, believes that there are possible rewards for locals for maintain and install devices. They can use water provided by devices to grow their own vegetables and use older trees branched for fire.
Finally, the author wraps up the topic by claiming that trees that have outgrown the device have to deal with unforgiving environmental conditions on their own and they will not survive long in such condition. Then again, the professor stays on the other side of the argument and says that trees that old enough and outgrown the device have ling roots that reach water under the ground and they can survive for month in harsh condition.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Undoubtedly
undoubtedly, desertification has always been a cont...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 215, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ill cost so much that lots of countries cant afford it. But the professor refutes wi...
^^^^
Line 7, column 342, Rule ID: LING[1]
Message: Did you mean 'long'?
Suggestion: long
...old enough and outgrown the device have ling roots that reach water under the ground...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, first of all, more or less
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 7.48453608247 80% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 4.92783505155 223% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 15.0 5.05154639175 297% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 14.0 3.03092783505 462% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 26.0 32.9175257732 79% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 26.3917525773 148% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 3.85567010309 207% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1589.0 937.175257732 170% => OK
No of words: 312.0 206.0 151% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09294871795 4.54256449028 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 3.78020617076 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73045133277 2.54303337028 107% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 127.690721649 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544871794872 0.622605031667 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 469.8 290.88556701 162% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.41237113402 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.13402061856 44% => OK
Article: 8.0 0.824742268041 970% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 1.83505154639 54% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.463917525773 647% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 1.44329896907 69% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 12.6804123711 103% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 16.3608247423 147% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 67.8328087346 44.8134815571 151% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.230769231 76.5299724578 160% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 16.8248392259 143% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.76923076923 4.34317383033 156% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.29896907216 93% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 2.54639175258 118% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 7.41237113402 27% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 1.49484536082 602% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.94845360825 51% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0950274475628 0.216113520407 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0369584762561 0.0766984524023 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0304209309177 0.0603063233224 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0593646913274 0.12726935374 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.033845632581 0.0580467560999 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 8.37731958763 173% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 70.7449484536 79% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 3.82989690722 81% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 7.45979381443 154% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 8.71597938144 144% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 7.59969072165 108% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 41.2886597938 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 8.62886597938 99% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 8.54432989691 136% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 8.15463917526 147% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.