tree
Both the reading and the lecturer discuss about whether the genetically modified trees are more productive and strength enough to servive or not. The former argues that the genetic modified trees are great for three reasons where the latter contradicts each of these points made by the reading.
First of all, the author contends tht, the genetically modified trees are designed to survive in the adverse conditions and have a great advanyage over the normal trees in order to control over the pest. In contrast, the lecturer argues that, although the normal trees have less resistive against the pest but they have chance to servive few of them in the adverse natural condition and on the attack of a pest. However the genetically modified trees re designed in a certain coding to survive in certain condition and type of pest and if the natural climate change certainly or a new type of pest attack, their entarilly population get destroyed and weeped out.
Secondly, The reading asserts that, genetically modified trees are economically good since they grow fast and can have a greater return to the farmer. However, the professor rebuts that, they have some hidden points that is you have to pay the money for the seeds to the producer each and every time you use their seeds which raise their cost.
Finally,
the text claims that, genetically modified trees are work as an agent to save the native endanger trees from decline by controlling the overexploitation of the wild trees. On the other hands, the listening vounters that, since the genetically modified trees are grown faster they out conuter the native trees for resources like suunlight, water and nutritions and thus are dangerous to the native trees extinction.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-12-26 | saba22 | 80 | view |
| 2022-11-20 | 57454751 | 76 | view |
| 2022-11-20 | Newporteghale | 73 | view |
| 2022-11-15 | ctoluwasedaniel | 60 | view |
| 2022-09-21 | quanjun | 90 | view |
- Ethanol fuel, made from plants such as corn and sugar cane, has been advocated by some people as an alternative to gasoline in the United States. However, many critics argue that ethanol is not a good replacement for gasoline for several reasons.First, th 60
- In the past century, the steady growth of the human population and the corresponding increase in agriculture and pesticide use have caused much harm to wildlife in the United States—birds in particular. Unfortunately for birds, these trends are likely t 73
- bird 61
- In the 1950s Torreya taxifolia, a type of evergreen tree once very common in the state of Florida, started to die out. No one is sure exactly what caused the decline, but chances are good that if nothing is done, Torreya will soon become extinct. Experts 86
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 413, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... condition and on the attack of a pest. However the genetically modified trees re desig...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 398, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'trees'' or 'tree's'?
Suggestion: trees'; tree's
...ns and thus are dangerous to the native trees extinction.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, thus, in contrast, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 15.1003584229 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 9.8082437276 10% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 13.8261648746 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.0286738351 82% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 43.0788530466 42% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 52.1666666667 71% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.0752688172 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1451.0 1977.66487455 73% => OK
No of words: 289.0 407.700716846 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02076124567 4.8611393121 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.48103885553 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51210119437 2.67179642975 94% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 212.727598566 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.519031141869 0.524837075471 99% => OK
syllable_count: 449.1 618.680645161 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 9.59856630824 21% => OK
Article: 8.0 3.08781362007 259% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 20.6003584229 44% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 32.0 20.1344086022 159% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 36.8614355675 48.9658058833 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 161.222222222 100.406767564 161% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.1111111111 20.6045352989 156% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.7777777778 5.45110844103 216% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 11.8709677419 51% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.88709677419 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.384186452537 0.236089414692 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.197870538641 0.076458572812 259% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110164282704 0.0737576698707 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.253115689457 0.150856017488 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.123516540064 0.0645574589148 191% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.3 11.7677419355 156% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.0 58.1214874552 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 10.1575268817 156% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.43 10.9000537634 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.01818996416 105% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 86.8835125448 68% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.002688172 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 10.0537634409 147% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.