In the reading material, the author cites three reasons to support that a box-shaped device will not be successful in fighting against desertification. Nevertheless, the lecture in the listening material argues that this device does contribute to helping trees grow and fight desertification and oppose the points in the reading material.
First and foremost, the author argues that the device costs 25 dollars per tree, which would make growing trees unaffordable for many countries. However, the lecturer offers the opposite stand that this estimation is inaccurate. The device can be reused over 20 times, and the average cost of each time then can be calculated at a reasonable price.
Second, another topic of the debate is connected with the difficulty to find local people to install and maintain these trees because it is hard to motivate them to take care of trees that cannot provide them with food. The lecturer disagrees with this statement. He points out that though these trees cannot serve as food sources, the devices used in cultivating trees can also be used in cultivating other vegetables. In the meantime, a growing tree can offer local people many free branches as firewood. With more food and firewood benefits from using the device, local people are easily motivated to maintain these trees.
Finally, the author's third reason is that the device's ability is limited to provide enough water for a larger tree, which is counteracted by the author. As trees grow larger, their roots will become long enough to go down into the deep of soil and find water. A report shows that 90% of trees survive after the device has been removed for two years. This conclusion demonstrates that there is no need to worry whether the device can provide enough water for a larger tree.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 47, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'devices'' or 'device's'?
Suggestion: devices'; device's
...y, the authors third reason is that the devices ability is limited to provide enough wa...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, then, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1500.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01672240803 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57388227545 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.571906354515 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 463.5 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.8709261729 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.142857143 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3571428571 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 7.06452816374 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.103195981045 0.272083759551 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0416734044808 0.0996497079465 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0246990662046 0.0662205650399 37% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0605752767315 0.162205337803 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0221084763367 0.0443174109184 50% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.