Actually fires are natural part of ecological cycle and their role is not just destructive but also creative. That is why the “let it burn” policy is fundamentally a good one, even if it sometimes causes fires of the 1988 Yellowstone fire. Let's look at what happened after 1988 Yellowstone fire.First, vegetation. As you might imagine, scorched areas were in time colonized by new plants. As a matter of fact, the plants in Yellowstone became more diverse because the fire created an opportunity for certain plants that could not grow otherwise. For example, areas where the trees have been destroyed by fire could now be taken over by smaller plants that needed open and shaded space to grow. And another example, seeds of certain plants species won't germinate unless they're exposed to very high levels of heat. So, those plants started appearing after the fire as well. It's a similar story with the animals.Not only did their population recover, but the fire also created new opportunities. For instance, the small plants that replaced trees after the fire created an ideal habitat for certain small animals like rabbits and hares. And when rabbits and hares started thriving, so did some predators that depended on them for food. So, certain food chains actually became stronger after the fire than they were before.And last, fires like 19888 Yellowstone fire would be a problem for tourism if they happened every year. But they don't. It was a very unusual combination of factors that year, low rainfall, unusually strong winds, accumulation of dry undergrowth that caused fire to be so massive. This combination has not occurred since and Yellowstone has not seen such a fire since 1988. Visitors came back to the park next year and each year after that.
The article states thatnatural forest fire needs to get under a controlled policy due to it has a lot of damages and provides three reasons of support. However,the professor refutes the article and each reasons of that.
First, the article states that the natural forest fire in Yellowstone damaged plants of this area. However, the professor opposes that it is natuaral and causes many new opprtunities for existance of new small plants and vegetation. She beleives that not only was not this natural change distructive but also it was creative.
Second, the article posits that the park wildlife was affected by this incident. However, the professor claims that like previous subject it helped the park to creat new habitat for new groups of animals like rabits and heirs. she says that there would be new popoulation of animals and due to this issue many new kinds of foods and nutrition will be available for them.
Third, the author thinks that merit of park's attraction declined. However the professor refutes that it is an unusual combination for providing reason. She says after the big fire that occured in Yellostone, there are still a lot of tourists interested in y=
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 62, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...atnatural forest fire needs to get under a controlled policy due to it has a lot ...
^^
Line 1, column 161, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , the
...ovides three reasons of support. However,the professor refutes the article and each ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 251, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...plants and vegetation. She beleives that not only was not this natural change dis...
^^
Line 5, column 228, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...roups of animals like rabits and heirs. she says that there would be new popoulatio...
^^^
Line 7, column 67, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...hat merit of parks attraction declined. However the professor refutes that it is an unu...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, so, still, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 990.0 1373.03311258 72% => OK
No of words: 198.0 270.72406181 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.75116612262 4.04702891845 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56754483921 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 112.0 145.348785872 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.565656565657 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 306.9 419.366225166 73% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.5806074779 49.2860985944 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.0 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06452816374 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.0866472612978 0.272083759551 32% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0360121951109 0.0996497079465 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0470017523606 0.0662205650399 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0592390850436 0.162205337803 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0438255747142 0.0443174109184 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.42 12.2367328918 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 50.0 63.6247240618 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.