P. Ramorum is a microscopic fungus, which causes hazardous effect on oak trees in forests of western states. The reading passage states some methods that have been proposed to protect forest from P. Ramorum. However, the professor finds all of those proposals dubious and refutes them all by presenting several counter reasons.
To begin with, the author mentions that it has been discovered that P. Ramorum spores spread by human through shoes and bicycle tires. Therefore according to the author, some preventive measure should be taken like hikers should wash their shoes and bike scrubbers should be installed on bicycle trails. In the contrary, the lecturer thinks that this proposal might not be successful in preventing spores from spreading as rainfall causes long distance spread of P. Ramorum through water streams which is tough to control.
Secondly, the author claims that, fungicidal can play a prominent role in protecting oak trees, as this chemical can stimulate oak trees' natural defense system. Nevertheless, the professor casts his doubt on the success of this method, arguing that fungicidal need to be pushed directly into tree trunks and it has only short term effect. Therefore, it has to be applied again and again on numerous oak trees in the forest, which would be expensive and laborious job.
Finally, the author expresses that, clear-cutting method can be applied to prevent proliferation of disease by cutting and burning infected oaks with vegetation surrounding those oaks. The professor strongly challenges this proposal as it causes loss of rare species of plant though those might be healthy. According to her, this would cause greater ecological imbalance than current situation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 136, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
... human through shoes and bicycle tires. Therefore according to the author, some preventiv...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, as to, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1454.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 272.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34558823529 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06108636974 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60604459394 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.617647058824 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 421.2 419.366225166 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.3517823638 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.857142857 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4285714286 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.35714285714 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.177943258815 0.272083759551 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.064168006472 0.0996497079465 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0937258767608 0.0662205650399 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111429907798 0.162205337803 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0677971481684 0.0443174109184 153% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.46 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.