Because of climate change, more and more land that was once used to grow crops or provide food for animals is turning to dry, unusable desert land. There are many proposals about how to stop this process, known as desertification. A number of proposals involve growing trees, because trees can help protect soil and provide many other benefits to fight against desertification. Some scientists have proposed that the best way to grow trees in dry areas in danger of desertification is by using a box-shaped device surrounding the young tree. The device collects water that condenses from vapor in the atmosphere and helps the tree to grow. However, other scientists believe that this device will not be successful in fighting against desertification for the following reasons.
First, at a cost of 25 U S. dollars each, the device would make growing trees a prohibitively expensive process. Meaningful efforts to fight desertification involve growing millions of trees. Some countries most affected by desertification cannot afford to buy devices for millions of trees
Second, plans for fighting desertification involve asking local people to install and maintain the devices. People living in some of the areas most affected by desertification work long days in harsh conditions: sometimes barely managing to provide food for their families. It would be difficult to motivate these people to look after trees that cannot serve as a source of food for them.
Third, the device's ability to collect and conserve water is limited. Each one provides only enough water to keep a small tree alive. Trees that have outgrown the device have to deal with unforgiving environmental conditions on their own. In some places where the devices are being tried, six months can pass without a drop of rain. Once the trees become too big for the device, they may not be able to survive in such a harsh environment.
The author of the passage and the professor have conflicting opinions about using a device to fight against desertification. The author of the passage contends that this device is not applicable and raises three viewpoints. On the contrary, the professor explains how each viewpoint is not as convincing as it sounds and mentions three reasons to cast doubt on the author's opinion.
First of all, the author mentions that this process is too expensive because millions of trees should be planted. As a result, using the boxes would be so expensive for some countries which cannot afford the cost. However, with reference to the account of the professor, these devices can be reused for new trees more and more, which the cost decrease with this plan.
In addition, The author says that planting trees does not have enough motivation for local people to participate in the plan, it discusses, they have to work hard to feed their families, and the trees are not a food source. The professor presents a solution for this problem by saying that installing the boxes has some rewards. For instance, they can collect the boxes and use them for cultivation which solves the food problem. Besides, they can collect the tree's branches and use them as firewood. By considering these benefits, the plan could convince them to attend the planting plan.
The final conflicting subject has to do with using the device after the tree becomes too big which is not applicable in this step. The author indicates that these devices cannot support mature trees, and trees cannot survive in such harsh conditions. On the contrary, the professor highlighted that when trees grow enough, their roots penetrate the soil depth and help them use the water beneath the ground. She presents a case study in which 90 percent of trees survived after removing the boxes.
All in all, the problems presented in the passage are solvable based on three reasons which were completely discussed above.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 366, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ions three reasons to cast doubt on the authors opinion. First of all, the author men...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, first, however, if, so, as to, for instance, in addition, as a result, first of all, on the contrary, with reference to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1643.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 330.0 270.72406181 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97878787879 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50824352548 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512121212121 0.540411800872 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 485.1 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.8516365561 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.6875 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.625 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06452816374 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.105864259441 0.272083759551 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0384475062988 0.0996497079465 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0315282255237 0.0662205650399 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0555269699756 0.162205337803 34% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0399598855249 0.0443174109184 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.